NYTimes Sues US Gov't To Know How It Interprets the PATRIOT Act 186
hydrofix writes "Techdirt has been following the story of the DoJ's classified interpretation of the PATRIOT Act. Specifically, it's all about Section 215, the so-called 'business-records provision,' which empowers the FBI to get businesses to turn over any records it deems relevant to a security investigation. Senators Ron Ryden and Mark Udall have been pushing the government to reveal how it uses these provisions to deploy 'dragnets' for massive amounts of information on private citizens 'without any connection to terrorism or espionage,' a secret reinterpretation that is 'inconsistent with the public's understanding of these laws.' After NYTimes reporter Charlie Savage had his Freedom of Information request denied, the NYTimes has now sued the government (PDF) to reveal how it interprets the very law under which it's required to operate."
Wyden not Ryden (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Due process (Score:4, Informative)
Our government doesn't give even half of a flying fuck about what the Constitution says any more.
Re:What? (Score:2, Informative)
They'd have to read them first, so of course not.
Yes it does (Score:5, Informative)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
I highlighted the important part. The heart of the concept of "due process of law" is that no one will be punished until they have been declared guilty of breaking a law in a fair trial. If the meaning of a law is so vague that neither judge nor jury can reasonably ascertain who is guilty of the law and who is not, then the only fair ruling it to acquit everyone accused of it. If the Supreme Court decides that a law cannot be reasonably interpreted, then no other court in the land should attempt to do so. In this case the law is void due to being unconstitutionally vague.