Patriot Act Blocked

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-09-30 12:17pm

CNN wrote:Judge blocks part of Patriot Act
Secret searches unconstitutional, he rulesWednesday, September 29, 2004 Posted: 9:37 PM EDT (0137 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- Declaring that personal security is as important as national security, a judge Wednesday blocked the government from conducting secret, unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records as part of its fight against terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling a "landmark victory" against the Justice Department's post-September 11 law enforcement powers.

"Today's ruling is a wholesale refutation of excessive government secrecy and unchecked executive power," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down a provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI to force Internet service providers and phone companies to turn over certain customer records. The companies are then barred from ever disclosing the search took place.

In his ruling, the judge called national security of "paramount value" and said the government "must be empowered to respond promptly and effectively" to threats. But he called personal security equal in importance and "especially prized in our system of justice."

Marrero said his ruling blocks the government from issuing the requests or from enforcing the non-disclosure provision "in this or any other case." But the ruling will not immediately take effect to allow for an appeal.

Megan L. Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor's office in Manhattan, said the government was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.

The judge said the law violates the Fourth Amendment because it bars or deters any judicial challenge to the government searches, and violates the First Amendment because its permanent ban on disclosure is a prior restraint on speech.

He noted that the Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

"Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good," Marrero wrote.

Marrero issued his decision in favor of an Internet access firm identified in his 120-page ruling as "John Doe." He had agreed to keep the firm's identity secret to protect the FBI probe that led to the search request.

Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer, said the government had turned over as part of the lawsuit a six-page document showing it had obtained Internet or telephone records dozens and possibly hundreds of times.

The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by legislation passed after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.

In a footnote to his ruling, Marrero cited words he had written two years ago in another case to warn that courts must apply "particular vigilance to safeguard against excess committed in the name of expediency."

"The September 11 cases will challenge the judiciary to do September 11 justice, to rise to the moment with wisdom equal to the task, its judgments worthy of the large dimensions that define the best September 11 brought out of the rest of American society."

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-30 12:22pm

About fucking time.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-30 12:28pm

Guess Bush is going to have trouble with the platform plank "Renew the Patriot Act."

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-30 12:32pm

In Bush's attempts to fuck the American people, it's good to see SOME part of the government is still trying to cock-block the president.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-09-30 12:44pm

Those damn activists judges want the terrorists to win!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-30 12:50pm

Ben Franklin said that he who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither, so he would obviously oppose the Patriot Act, and Thomas Jefferson said that the wall of separation between church and state is necessary, so he would obviously oppose "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Founding Fathers.
Wrong on National Security.
Wrong on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Wrong for America.

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2004-09-30 12:59pm

Even better, it didn't come from the 9th circut.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-30 01:09pm

Darth Wong wrote:Ben Franklin said that he who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither, so he would obviously oppose the Patriot Act, and Thomas Jefferson said that the wall of separation between church and state is necessary, so he would obviously oppose "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Founding Fathers.
Wrong on National Security.
Wrong on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Wrong for America.

It's nice how you pick and choose select parts of a few limited statements of the founding fathers and use this as your basis for argument, when you well know that the vast majority of founding fathers were perfectly fine with a Judeo-Christian rooted nation.

As for the Patriot Act, I'd actually like to see where this is terribly unconstitutional. My view: it's basically a warrant procedure on the federal level. It's not as if they are going to tap into your phone line just for the hell of it. They still have to have reasonable cause.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-30 01:13pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Ben Franklin said that he who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither, so he would obviously oppose the Patriot Act, and Thomas Jefferson said that the wall of separation between church and state is necessary, so he would obviously oppose "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Founding Fathers.
Wrong on National Security.
Wrong on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Wrong for America.
It's nice how you pick and choose select parts of a few limited statements of the founding fathers and use this as your basis for argument, when you well know that the vast majority of founding fathers were perfectly fine with a Judeo-Christian rooted nation.

You're an imbecile. The Founding Fathers who are relevant to a constitutional discussion are the ones who drew up the First Amendment. If the majority strenuously objected to the wall of separation between church and state, they could have and should have stopped it. They did not.

PS. Most of the "proofs" for this "Judeo-Christian rooted nation" bullshit are based on nice things the Founding Fathers said about Christianity, not quotes from them indicating that they approved of the union of church and state. This is the oldest dumb-shit religionist argument in the book.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-09-30 01:14pm

Talon Karrde wrote:It's nice how you pick and choose select parts of a few limited statements of the founding fathers and use this as your basis for argument, when you well know that the vast majority of founding fathers were perfectly fine with a Judeo-Christian rooted nation.

You're such a lying sack of shit it's amusing.

"State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists, 1808.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them" - President Lincoln

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature ... [In] the formation of the American governments ... it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven ... These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."- John Adams, second President of the United States

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

These are not the words of men who had nothing against a Christian government. These are men who fought tooth and nail to make it illegal to have a Christian government. Because they're sensible.

As for the Patriot Act, I'd actually like to see where this is terribly unconstitutional. My view: it's basically a warrant procedure on the federal level. It's not as if they are going to tap into your phone line just for the hell of it. They still have to have reasonable cause.

Due Process is violated, you ignorant little shitstain.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-30 01:21pm

Ben Franklin: " . . . (Our) small progress is melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. To this kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? . . . I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall . . . without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? . . . I move that prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

George Washington: " You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

Ben Franklin: "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

John Quincy Adams: "The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-30 01:27pm

Obviously, my point sailed over your head completely, since you posted a series of quotes in which various people praised Christianity but did not state that it had any place in law. Not to mention simply ignoring my point about why these men mysteriously failed to prevent the Establishment clause from going into effect if they felt that the church should have a place in government.

Not that I find this surprising, since you have a long history of being too stupid to address points.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-09-30 01:29pm

Notice, if you will, how Karrde does not reveal the sources of these quotations. Context is everything, people. Who wants to bet they were drumming up support in typical political fashion?

If Karrde thinks just tossing quotes out is enough, he should visit This thread. That is, if his Right Wing Drone programming doesn't short out at such ungodliness.

It is telling, however, to see how our dear little Fundamentalist Moron completely sidesteps his claim that he doesn't think this part of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution, when I pointed out Due Process gets fucked up in the process. There's even a nice little dovetail here, to link the two points!

See, Due Process is a result of the Salem Witch Trials, and the marginally less rabidly insane witch trials back on the Continent. Due to united State and Church in these cases, there was no need for Process, evidence, or even defense.. Witchcraft was a crime against the State(Except in Salem, in which case it was against God), and you got hung for it(Except, of course, if you didn't confess guilt. Then you got pressed under hundreds of pounds of stone.).

The Founding Fathers, seeing this and other fuckups of basic human decency committed by those who wield religion, were further pushed towards the formation of secular law and the Due Process bit.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-09-30 01:35pm

There is in the clergy of all Christian denominations a time-serving, cringing, subservient morality, as wide from the spirit of the gospel as it is from the intrepid assertion and vindication of truth.
-- John Quincy Adams, diary entry for May 27, 1838

And claiming that Franklin liked the Christian religion is simply ignorant, since it's fairly common knowledge (in my mind, at least) that he disliked organized religion in general.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-30 01:41pm

Karrde obviously doesn't understand that whole "actions speak louder than words" thing when it comes to politicians. Of course, that's not surprising for a supporter of "compassionate conservative, uniter not a divider" George Bush, since any such person has to become quite adept at ignoring actions in favour of platitudes.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-09-30 01:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:Karrde obviously doesn't understand that whole "actions speak louder than words" thing when it comes to politicians. Of course, that's not surprising for a supporter of "compassionate conservative, uniter not a divider" George Bush, since any such person has to become quite adept at ignoring actions in favour of platitudes.

Bush is a uniter, he united almost the entire world agains US of A.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2004-09-30 02:08pm

sounds about right

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2004-09-30 02:15pm

Gustav32Vasa wrote:Bush is a uniter, he united almost the entire world agains US of A.

Just against himself really.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-30 02:40pm

Sir Sirius wrote:
Gustav32Vasa wrote:Bush is a uniter, he united almost the entire world agains US of A.
Just against himself really.

That seems to be a concept that many Americans cannot understand. I know I've been guilty of it myself many times. We tend to identify with our government, as if a critique or slur against a president is somehow a slur against us. When I was in Spain my cousin was showing me around and when people heard I was an American they were very polite and curious. Generally they said Americans were friendly people and they enjoyed their company.

They seemed to have a different view of our government and its foreign policy. They saw no contradiction in saying they loved Americans but were none to thrilled with our government's foreign policy.

People like O'Reilly feed into this misconception of most Americans by playing on the "overwhelmingly Anti-American press in Europe" that in his words "pound it to their readers incessantly how evil and bad America is."

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2004-09-30 03:52pm

Bad news. It turns out the media is increasingly incompetent and/or dishonest, possibly both. The judge in question did not in any way strike down or block the so-called Patriot Act. What he did do is strike down a portion of THIS law:

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode ... -000-.html

This was passed in 1986 and the fact that it took 18 years for this item to reach any judge does not speak well for the likelihood of the decision standing on the appeal, as I presume the FBI would have been making at least some use of it prior to 9/11.

My (very) short review of the decision by District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York was unable to find even a reference to the Patriot Act, and it certainly did not strike it down in any way. For confirmation or condemnation, I offer the entire decision to any interested parties:

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04 ... 092904.pdf

See pages 14-22 of the Judge Marrero's decision for the history of this law.

I am also informed by a lawyer friend of mine on another forum that there is a piece of the so-called Patriot Act, a Section 215(?) which can actually fill in for and replace this law, which means the Patriot Act's use may have just been EXPANDED.

Anybody can confirm or deny this?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-30 04:05pm

Talon Karrde wrote: As for the Patriot Act, I'd actually like to see where this is terribly unconstitutional. My view: it's basically a warrant procedure on the federal level. It's not as if they are going to tap into your phone line just for the hell of it. They still have to have reasonable cause.

Have you even read this fucking thing? Let's have a look shall we?

Patriot Act, Section 106, C wrote:When the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.

Wow, so the president gets the ability to hold foreign nationals and seize their property just by proclaiming them as a threat to national security. Let's dig a little deeper...

Patriot Act, Section 501 wrote:The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

So the FBI director has the right to seize documents that would previously require a warrant as long as the decision to do so isn't based SOLELY on the basis of activites protected by the First Amendment. Wow, broad discretional authority to execute search and seizures, does this sound Constiutional to you? Let's keep going shall we? We're on a roll here.

Patriot Act, Section 219 wrote: Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended by inserting after `executed' the following: `and (3) in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code), by a Federal magistrate judge in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred, for a search of property or for a person within or outside the district'.

Wow, so now a Federal judge can order a search warrant for ANYONE in the US (regardless of district) so long as the investigation is under the guise of "terrorism". Are we having fun yet?

This is but a small sample of the travesty that is the USA Patriot Act. It's quite obvious that you haven't bothered to even skim it, instead opting to keep your lips firmly planted on Bush's cock.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-30 04:44pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:There is in the clergy of all Christian denominations a time-serving, cringing, subservient morality, as wide from the spirit of the gospel as it is from the intrepid assertion and vindication of truth.
-- John Quincy Adams, diary entry for May 27, 1838

And claiming that Franklin liked the Christian religion is simply ignorant, since it's fairly common knowledge (in my mind, at least) that he disliked organized religion in general.

especially in reguards to himself and his fellow "Libertines" or folks of distinctly non-puritanical sexual appities....

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-30 04:52pm

Point being, since the patriot act violates due process, representation, a right to a speedy trial, and in a form of moral equivalent violates the sanctaty of one's home being commendeered to garrison troups (or just sezied and auctioned without evidence, to pay for expenses of our troops) and many other frameworks of the american constitution and declaration of independance. I consider it's authors and backers to be traitors to the republic and all that it stands for. (yes, secret service agents I just said I thing George W., Ashcroft, and co. deserve to be hanged, but only after articles of impeachment, and a trial by a jury of peers as guarunteed under law which is better then they are offering the rest of us)

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-30 05:08pm

So how does this fare for striking the whole thing down in the near future? I don't think I'd like to live in a nation with a single paragraph of this bill in legal procedure.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-09-30 07:32pm

Kernal, where did you find the text for the Patriot Act? Can you post a link please? Thanks.

Also I believe the Ben Franklin quote in my sig is a perfect rebuttle to the Patiot Act.