Portions of PATRIOT Act ruled unconstitutional

from JoeUser Forums
See, for example, This story from Reuters, which starts off:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Surveillance powers granted to the FBI under the Patriot Act, a cornerstone of the Bush Administration's war on terror, were ruled unconstitutional by a judge on Wednesday in a new blow to U.S. security policies.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo, in the first decision against a surveillance portion of the act, ruled for the American Civil Liberties Union in its challenge against what it called "unchecked power" by the FBI to demand confidential customer records from communication companies, such as Internet service providers or telephone companies.

Marrero, stating that "democracy abhors undue secrecy," found that the law violates constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches. He said it also violated free speech rights by barring those who received FBI demands from disclosing they had to turn over records.

Because of this gag order, the ACLU initially had to file its suit against the Department of Justice under seal to avoid penalties for violation of the surveillance laws.
[...]


This is news I am very happy to see. I believed from the start that the PATRIOT act went too far in many areas and opened the door for massive abuses by federal law enforcement. While this article says nothing about any abuses that may have occurred, it does point out exactly what was found wrong with this portion of the Act.
politics
11,870 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
About time! Finally, new dawn of freedom and privacy appears.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Won't matter till the supreme court rules on the issue.

Good to see that the issue is finally being examined by legal minds as oppossed to the politicians, many of whom didn't even reads it, let alone have time to consider it's implications.

Paul.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Solitair is correct, it won't matter until the Federal Supreme Court rules on this issue. It is somewhat similar to homosexual marriage, just because one judge says it, it doesn't make it law.

It is the fault of the politicians for not reading and then criticizing, rather than criticizing it as though they were tricked into something.

If they opposed it, they should of stood up and say so as it is there obligation and duty, especially in a Democratic-Republic society.

Also, the idea behind the surveillance gathering techniques is to gain intelligence from people that very well may do serious harm to the masses in a terrorist like fashion.

When intelligence agencies collect this information, they may only use it to stop terrorist incidents but may not use the evidence they previously gathered in a court of law.
Unless it was previously granted by a warrant, but if a warrant was established later it may not become retroactive.

Its a really good idea behind The Patriot Act but there are some things to change to in it, as with every measure, bill, act and law.

The thing is, Americans needed something to protect themselves all of sudden and especially right after September 11th happened when attacks continued, such as the anthrax sent through the mail.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Won't matter till the supreme court rules on the issue.


Actually, it does matter immediately; it will stand until the government files an appeal. The judge's ruling is presumed correct until overturned by a higher court.
I do expect that the government will appeal, but in the meantime they have to stop using these portions of the law.

they should of stood up

Argh! see: this link. Read item 1 therein.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, it does matter immediately; it will stand until the government files an appeal. The judge's ruling is presumed correct


It's not just that, but someone actually voiced a protest on excessive power.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
but in the meantime they have to stop using these portions of the law.


Not true. The ruling is suspended until the government decides whether to appeal or not. I would be stunned if the government does not appeal and if this case does not go the whole way to the supreme court. I expect the government will delay and delay, maximising the use they can make of these illegal powers until eventually the supreme court puts an end to them (or rules them acceptable).

Paul.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good news. Thanks for passing this along. It will be interesting to see how this pans out from here.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The ruling is suspended until the government decides whether to appeal or not. I would be stunned if the government does not appeal and if this case does not go the whole way to the supreme court. I expect the government will delay and delay, maximising the use they can make of these illegal powers


Essentially true; I'd forgotten that portion of the article. The enforcement of the ruling is delayed for 90 days so that the government can decide whether or not to appeal. That's not quite the same thing as the ruling being suspended, I don't think. (I'd have to read up on that, though.) (Explained a tiny bit in this article.)

Of course it already looks like the government doesn't need 90 days to decide whether to appeal or not.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
To most people, the big issue is about supposedly the government can enter any house they want without notifying the persons. This doesn't apply to the average American. What makes me mad is when I see the scare tactic commercials with people being scared of having the government in their homes. The only reason why America would use these powers is to stop ist.

If there are reasons that the government would use these kind of powers for something else, please let me know.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
ChrisRix said:
The only reason why America would use these powers is to stop ist.
First, I presume you meant "terrorists" there at the end. I reproduce here a post I made in another thread which provides links to existing governmental abuses of the PATRIOT act:

FBI uses Patriot Act (which is supposed to be for fighting terrorism, you'll recall) to bust Vegas strip club operators:
www.msnbc.msn.com
A good piece from the Sacramento Bee about money-laundering and other abuses of the Patriot Act:
www.sacbee.com
FBI uses Patriot act to accuse artists of bioterrorism, ends up charging them with mail fraud:
www.caedefensefund.org
The Patriot Act itself makes it harder to know that your rights are being violated:
www.commondreams.org
People can challenge Patriot Act provisions (if they can get into the courtroom):
seattletimes.nwsource.com
CIA is spying on US Citizens:
aclu.org
"Foes of Patriot act fear harm to honest citizens":
newsmax.com
which includes a bit about "bumping someone on the head with a picket sign" could be interpreted as domestic terrorism.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is the fault of the politicians for not reading


That's not true, I saw a guy read the whole thing to them from an Ice Cream truck.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I saw a guy read the whole thing to them from an Ice Cream truck.




I'm not sure what frightens me more, the idea that politicians need someone to read the legislation to them or that an ice cream truck owner may be more politically aware than the politicians?

Paul.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
I like the point Paul made...

The problem is with every law and act that was made will get abused when people have nothing else to use, specifically law enforcement.

I personally live in a state that does such a thing. Which is not enforcing laws that are created but only using them when another law is broken or there is nothing else to use. People only use these laws on a one way street and not fulfilling the original purpose.

Now, when someone is going to commit a crime in a terrorist fashion, it is a good idea to be able to stop them. When I mean terrorist fashion, I'm talking about inhumane crimes and using weapons that would conclude inhumane weapons on a non-battlefield. Yes, I know people could agree that Americans (among other countries) used such weapons in the past, but I'm talking about now and only now. That is why we need legislation to protect Americans and others from an incident from ever happening.

Now, concerning the government coming into your home to gather evidence to arrest you... That is not necessarily the process of gathering evidence in the intelligence business. Sometimes and most times its from an unsuspecting distance that one would not know they are being watched. This can be electronic eavesdropping, phone tapping, retrieving business and personal records, and plain old tagging a person and watching them from a hidden location.

If you think that the United States Government (among other governments) hasn't been doing this until now, your wrong.

Basically the reason why people are scared, in my humble opinion, is that their worst fears which has been previously forgotten and called "wacko ideas”, have been brought to the surface and confirmed through legislation. Especially with September 11th happening.

Yes there might be a suspension or total eradication of the Patriot Act but the American government (among other governments) will continue what they need to do to stop terrorists from operating.

I personally don’t want to here “We legally can’t do this…” when there is a situation that calls for stopping a terrorist from doing something or preventing something so far in advance that it could deter a terrorist from even having the chance.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
I'm feeling so incredibly vindicated today. Down with Patriot Act!!!

I'd like to tell any P.A. supporters to officially kiss my @SS!

...but I won't do that....