Part Of The Patriot Act Shot Down 618
jtwJGuevara writes "In a victory today for the ACLU, (and many Slashdotters I presume) the section of the Patriot Act which gives power to the FBI to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorist investigations has been ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. Victor Marreo, the District Judge who made this ruling, states that the provision of the Patriot Act in question 'effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge.'"
Missed something... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's not right. (Score:1, Informative)
Link to PDF of the ruling (Score:5, Informative)
ACLU's site is getting hammered; the decision has also been posted on EFF's site:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/ PATRIOT/20040929_NSL_Decision.pdf [eff.org]
(EFF's press release is here [eff.org].)
Say what? (Score:5, Informative)
This means something (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This means nothing (Score:5, Informative)
The loser needs to appeal it to the supreme court for it to affect the entire US.
This particular case only applies within the district court's jurisdiction. It hasn't been to an appeals court yet.
not even the same ball park buddy (Score:2, Informative)
Eff press release, wikipedia link (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, shorter and much more informative than the abcnews story. The wikipedia link for the patriot act is here [wikipedia.org].
-jim
Re:Please remind me. (Score:3, Informative)
Russ Feingold. Wisconsin. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please remind me. (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry thats it (from either party). Way to go US Senate.
Voting records (Score:5, Informative)
Baldwin, Barrett, Blumenauer, Bonior, Boucher, Brown (OH),Capuano, Clayton, Conyers, Coyne, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeFazio, DeGette, Dingell, Farr, Filner, Frank, Hastings (FL), Hilliard, Honda, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Meek (FL), Miller, George, Mink, Mollohan, Nadler, Ney, Oberstar, Olver, Otter, Owens, Pastor, Paul, Payne, Peterson (MN), Rahall, Rivers, Rush, Sabo, Sanchez, Sanders, Schakowsky, Scott, Serrano, Stark, Thompson (MS), Tierney, Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Velazquez, Visclosky, Waters, Watson (CA), Watt (NC), Woolsey, and Wu
and in the Senate: Feingold
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=20
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call
Defition of terrorism (Score:4, Informative)
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Source [reference.com]
You'll note that there is no distinction between governments or civilians. One could argue that a rebellion (and yes, the Founding Fathers were British citizens at the time) is a form of terrorism, as is destruction of property like the Boston Tea Party and other attacks on forts & munitions before the Revolution was official.
But (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, technically (Score:3, Informative)
In his ruling, Marrero prohibited the Department of Justice and the FBI from issuing the national security letters, but delayed enforcement of his judgment pending an expected appeal by the government. The Department of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling.
Re:Please remind me. (Score:2, Informative)
in the house, the picture was a bit different For HR 3162 (house version of patriot act), the votes were
For : 211 Republicans, 145 Democrats, 1 Independent
Against : 3 Republicans, 62 Democrats, 1 Independant
clearly the Democrats were less enamored of the legislation than were republicans, although not in sufficient numbers
But that's missing the point. The Dems do not (as a whole) want a Patriot II, the Republican leadership does.
Re:Please remind me. (Score:4, Informative)
See the House roll call vote here. [house.gov] Sixty-two Dems voted against it, as did one independent and three Republicans. Nine representatives did not vote; five GOP and 4 Dems.
Ninety-six Senators [senate.gov] voted for it. Feingold (D-Wis) was the lone dissenter. Domenici, Helms, and Thurmond (GOP) did not vote. Note also that the three previous roll call votes were on motions tabling amendments that Feingold had offered to soften the UPA.
About 29% of Democrats in the House voted against it, while about 1% of the Republicans did the same. But when it comes to the UPA, there's plenty of blame to spread around. (Including my own rep, alas. It's a pity the guy running against her is scarier still.)
Re:good idea! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Supreme Court (Score:3, Informative)
The Constitution clearly vests power in the Supreme Court and gives it certain limits. It would be impossible (IMHO) to limit or change the Supreme Courts powers or jurisdiction without a constitutional amendment.
As for the rest of the federal courts, Congress clearly is given the power to do whatever they please with them.
The good news, this law will never get passed in the Senate, and will die a lonely death. It never even made out of committee last year (in almost identical form). The only reason it made it to the floor and passed was in order to turn people running for re-election into cannon fodder, i.e. "This candidate voted against PROTECTING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, vote for me instead." Thus, many people in Congress voted for the bill to avoid such embarassment (no matter how wrong it actually is.) They also voted for it, knowing that it would never actually become law.
It's sad that such tactics are used solely for politically gain, with no respect at all for the Constitution.
"Cited". It's "cited". (Score:1, Informative)
you know nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Missed something... (Score:4, Informative)
By "court order", I assume you are referring to search warrants. Yes, it is *very* easy for a cop to get one. However, in order for a warrant to be valid, the burden of probable cause must be met. The kind of "gung-ho, every warrant gets signed" judge you are referring to is the kind that defense attorneys love. During criminal proceedings, a defendant has the right to challenge the legality of any warrant issued against him. If there wasn't sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant,or if the cop oversteps the power that the warrant provides, it becomes invalid. That means that any evidence gathered under that warrant is inadmissable - it is the Fruit of the Poisoned tree. Entire cases have been thrown out because of sloppy search warrants. Look at what happened to R. Kelly in Florida.
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:1, Informative)
So in other words if you're rich and or famous its ok, its you and I that can be snatched off the street and never missed that have to watch what we say.
As for being hunted down by Ashcroft, he's not above doing the hunting [chron.com]. So tell me, are the people who leaked the government's incompetence to the press terrorists? Doesn't Ashcroft have something more important he should be doing?
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question. (Score:3, Informative)
Precisely
What it comes down to is this: after 9/11 the government realized that if it waited for people to do something wrong before neutralizing them, it'd be too late.
Simple solution! Give the government sweeping powers to secretly spy on people, and eliminate those that look threatening...
Alas, but that does give the terrorists precisely what they want -- a complete desctruction of our free society.
Fortunately, a judge somewhere saw that and chose to act in a small way to prevent that.
Now, just like before 9/11, the government has to demonstrate a high degree of probability that someone has actually broken the law before they can act to destroy them -- at least in this respect
What the judge actually said... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:good idea! (Score:4, Informative)
As for laws against murder, one could reasonably design that amendment in such a way that makes an exemption for certain explicitly-listed laws. Such an amendment should also prescribe a set time frame in whcih all laws must be updated to include a sunset provision and should limit the maximum duration of that period to no more than... say ten years. This would forcibly reduce the number of federal laws significantly, which would be a very good thing. 90% of laws amount to "this other law is hereby altered such that it doesn't apply in cases of foo". Those laws should not exist. They should be part of an amended form of the original law. That's a big part of why our legal system is such an utter mess....
Judge Marreo's Opinion/Order (Score:3, Informative)
I am conservative when it comes to economic and defense issues, and liberal with regards to social issues. A conservative libertain? I dont know... Anyways, that being said, Ashcroft makes me very uncomfortable. Everyone, whether they realize/admit it or not, has philosophical presuppositions from which they derive their ideas (ideology) concering morality, law, etc. I guess one could view the Constitution as our government's philisophical presupposition. I find myself having little confidence that Ashcroft sees/respects the division between his own ideology and that of the Constitution. Accurate or not, I for some reason I get the feeling that he wants to punish all the 'sinners', and have the rest praying on rice. There is no real evidence I can find to support this, but still, its just not the kind of 'vibes' I like to get from the Attorney General.
Good Wash. Post explanation of the Act's birth (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmn... (Score:2, Informative)
The CIA (together with the British Secret Service) engineered a coup in Iran in 1953 to put the Shah in power after the elected leader Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, was planning to nationalise oil interests.
http://www.payk.net/politics/cia-docs/main.html
And who do you think put those people in power and kept them there in the first place?
Leaving aside the thorny issue of solid US support for Israel over the last fifty years...
In 1949, the CIA engineered a military coup to oust Syria's elected leader, President Shukri Quwatli.
In 1953 (together with the British Secret Service) the CIA sponsored a coup in to put the Shah in power after the elected leader Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, had nationalised western oil interests. Happily, oil production was returned to their rightful owners once the Shah was in control.
(as an interesting aside, 'Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf's father was stationed in Iran as a CIA operative during this period)
http://www.payk.net/politics/cia-docs/main.html
Of course, we all know what happened to Iran after the people voiced their opinion on his repressive regime.
Again, the CIA has a track record of interfering in Iraq through the 1950s and 1960s - backing a coup in 1963 that overthrew the left-leaning Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem in favour of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. When things didn't go quite as intended, they backed a palace coup in 1968 in which Saddam Hussein's cousin became president, eventually passing on power to Hussein in 1979.
It's well known that the US wasn't averse to helping out Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran throughout the 1980s.
Jordan's King Hussein rewarded with millions of dollars every year from a secret CIA fund for a period of 20 years from the 1950s onward in return for intelligence reports of the Middle East.
In August 1982, Bashir Gemayel (on both the CIA and Mossad payrolls since studying in the US in the seventies) was elected president of Lebanon with a covert payment of $10 million signed off by Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, he was assassinated in September, but his brother Amin was sworn in as President. The Gemayel's Christian Phalangist malitia were responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, by the way.
The US isn't alone in this. The British were meddling in the Middle East for most of the first half of the 20th century. Much of the region was a British Protectorate after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War, when the Turks were allies of Germany. Winston Churchill is infamous for his ordering of the RAF to drop chemical munitions on Iraqi villages during insurrections against British-backed rule in the 1920s.
Returning to Saudi Arabia, the British were instrumental in assisting the House of Saud in a revolt against the Ottomans in 1902, and after a protracted civil war where they helped the al Sauds, were the first to recognise the expanded state of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.
While the Al Sauds had gained power with British help, the Kingdom was poor, with very little infrastructure to speak of; until the discovery of oil by a joint operation between Texaco and Standard Oil of California (SOCAL-later renamed Chevron) in 1936. The oil companies built the basic infrastructure of a modern state, and to defend their installations, brought the US military in, establishing the base in Dharan in 1944, when commercial exploitation of the oil resources began in earnest.
The House of Saud is still in firm control of the country to this day, with American weapons and British military training. Their track record on human rights isn't particularly good.
Your point that 'No Arabian pledged allegiance to the United States' is particularly pertinent in this context - it might seem that many of the leaders of Arab nations have done precisely that on behalf of their citizens, often in
savage weighs in (Score:2, Informative)
Nothing out of ordinary. Started at 17 as assistant to the mayor, New York City. Clinton appointee.
Re:Please remind me. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, according to this, [fact-index.com] "Assistant attorney general, Viet D. Dinh, was the chief architect of the act." While he might count, I think you intended to imply party affiliation, not middle initial.
The bill was introduced first in the House. The sponsor [loc.gov] was Sensenbrenner, and the only cosponsor Oxley, both Republicans. Note that this 342 page bill was introduced on 10/23/2001, and passed by the House at 11:03 AM the next day.
It was received in the Senate that same day (the 24th) and passed without amendment the next day. I listed the wrong roll-call vote in another post... the UPA passed 98-1 [senate.gov] with Feingold (D-WI) dissenting and Landrieu (D-LA) not voting. (Note that the Senate office building was attacked by anthrax on 10/15/2001, only 10 days before this vote.)
It was signed the next day, 10/26/2001, by the President and became law.
It seems to me that, although the list of Senatorial co-sponsors included many Democrats, none of the Senatorial co-sponsors appear to have had any effect whatsoever on the language of the bill. The House sponsor and cosponsor, neither of which are Democrats, are presumably the ones ultimately responsible for the bill's language.
So... which guys with a "D" next to their name helped write it, exactly? As I see it, most of Congress didn't have time to read it, let alone help write it.
Re:Praise Jebus and pass the Master Card! (Score:1, Informative)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540572/ [msn.com]
Re:Read the law itself (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, it was wrong to use the Patriot act (or maybe it was the DMCA), but he was going to get caught anyway.
Re:Son of Patriot: The Godfather (Score:3, Informative)
Right, I remember Kerry's heroic opposition to the Patriot Act...oh wait. Kerry has a horrible record [reason.com] on civil liberties. He supported the Clipper Chip and encryption bans (opposed by Ashcroft, of all people), thinks asset forfeiture is a great idea, and is enthusiastic about banks spying on their customers. My favorite line is this:
So yes, the Patriot Act gives unreasonable and easily abused powers to the government, but *he* wouldn't *dream* of abusing them like those meanie Republicans. I hear he also has several bridges available for purchase.
If you care strongly about civil liberties, you're pretty much down to the Libertarian or Green party, depending on your economic views. I'm firmly capitalist but I can't support the LP because of several of their other nutty positions, so I'm still not sure what I'll do. I may just leave the Presidential section blank as a form of "none of the above".
Re:ACLU, Republicans, You and I (Score:3, Informative)
I was aware of this draft legislation supposedly 'leaked' a while back, but my point is that it does not contain anything that 'erodes' our constitutional protections.
and
You said:
Now, the Republican party is getting ready with "Patriot Act II" in response to the findings of the Sept 11 commission, but in stark contrast to what's required, has granted far greater power and reach to the security agencies while dramatically eroding constitutional protections and providing a fraction of added security.
Explain to me how, Increasing border security to crackdowns on illegal immigration, imposing fines of up to $10,000 and possible prison time for illegal immigrants, required pretrial detention for terrorism suspects (no bail for individuals charged with terrorism), warrants against non-citizens even when a target can't be tied directly to a foreign power, and enhanced penalties for threats or attempts to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the United States, including attacks through the mail system erodes our constitutional protections. I see the Mexico-US border as one of the, if not the, biggest threats to our security.
"And as far as radical islamic terrorists, this play has just begun, its Act 1. Also they dont want you to bow to Islam, most of them just want the US to leave them the fuck alone."
They just want us to leave them alone? You are kidding right? Listen, what drove the terrorists to blow up the WTC is the realization that their warped fundamentalist religious culture is being replaced in the name of progress. For instance, the fundamental Saudi religious leader who sees his grandson watching Baywatch, and his granddaughter starting to get thoughts in her head that she should be treated like a human being, given freedom and an education. They oppose the concepts of freedom of religion, equality of men and women, freedom of speech, etc. They see these ideas which oppose their radical religious views starting to influence their culture and declare a "holy war" against western culture "the great satan". Now who is the leader of the poster child of this 'western evil'? The USA.
"To
Re:Praise Jebus and pass the Master Card! (Score:3, Informative)
This Google search [google.com] turns up some 150-odd links, but to narrow it down to one good referrence the AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION [ala.org] cites:
The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies, and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said. [emphasis mine]
So, is the American Library Association "left wing wacko drivel"?? Your claim of 'bullshit' has been called.
Just because somethign sounds like "left wing wacko drivel" does not make it false. The people working in law enforcement are generally good and well intentioned people trying to to the right thing and get the bad guys and simply using the tools at their disposal. The patriot act granted law enforcement absolutely unprecidented sweeping new powers, and those poweres were hastilly granted post 9/11. Numerous legislators have come out and publicly complained that they were never given a chance to read the damn bill, much less give it reasoned deliberation and debate. These legislators were told that the bill they were voting for was needed to deal with the terrorist threat, and that it only applied to terrorism, when in fact the text of most provisions were not in fact restricted to terrorism. Furthermore note that these provisions are used against suspects. By definition that means that in many cases it is in fact used against innocent people suspected of ordinary crime for one reason or another.
Dealing first hand with implications?
As he says, he works in academic library that's also a federal depository. The Patiriot act specifically says that LIBRARIANS ARE TO BE IMPRISONED if they reveal how the Patriot act has been used. He is already treading on thin ice by so much as admiting he has any first hand knowledge of Patriot act usage at all.
Further note that we are discussing a law that has already had one or more provisions ruled unconstitutional, with numerous other sections also under constitutional challenge. We are talking about a bill that was rushed through and is known to contain flaws.
-
Re:1984 world and today (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, arbitrary imprisonment is now simple and convenient - you just need to be declared a "material witness":