Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional 661
Adam9 writes "According to Yahoo/AP, a federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations. The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project."
And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
It's great that this is the first blow towards stamping out parts of the Patriot Act, but it's not winning the whole war.
I hope that Maher Arar [sfgate.com] sues the pants off of the US Government. To quote the article:
The Syrians locked Arar in an underground cell the size of a grave: 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high. Then they questioned him, under torture, repeatedly, for 10 months.
I hope that this man gets compensation for what he had to endure. I'm crossing my fingers that in the process of him doing so that most of these police-state laws that have gone into effect go the way of the dinosaur.
This isn't 1943 [utah.edu], and this isn't 1984 [online-literature.com]. The law should reflect that.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
More than "in a way"... they will have won, period. It's not like they expect the US to give up and remove all our military from the middle east or anything like that, terrorists have been attacking other american territory and other countries for a long time. Their goal is to cause chaos, to make people live their lives differently, by what the terrorists dictate. Exactly what they want is for the US to waste millions on extra metal detectors or anti-anthrax machines, or to give up our freedoms. By "fighting back" and installing all sorts of extra security features, we are only playing right into the terrorists' hand. Fighting back is not trying to guess their next move and save a few peoples lives, but to continue normally, not wasting our money on anti-terrorist measures, and instead spend that money to prevent the deahts of the thousands that might die from poverty, that might become victim to an underfunded education system, the thousands that will die because our great country doesn't want to provide the money for a working free health care program like even Canada has, just because we need to invade a country like iraq in case they attack us first. Terrorists aren't the real threat. Our own irrational fear is what we should be worrying about.
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not terrorists (attacking an invading military force is not terrorism, whether or not it professes to be a liberating force) and neither are the majority of them supporters of the old regeime, if this is synonomous with terrorist in your eyes. Get your facts straight.
They want Americans to either A) criticize these democrats for criticizing the war, and thus damage our right to free speech, or B) exert enough stress that the American people elect Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Clark, and the new president pull the troops out of Iraq. That is why they are attacking us, at least in Iraq. There are of course, other goals, such as spreading their radical Islam. (Note: I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion. I will not abide though, anyone who kills innocents in the name of whatever god they believe in.)
Nope, they (terrorists in general) want American troops out of the Middle East. They don't give a damn about how much freedom of speech you have, and I doubt all that many of them really care which God(s) you choose to believe in.
rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?) Anti-war people are not suggesting we go on as before; rather, this is what pro-war people are suggesting. America is attacked by crazy fundamentalists with marginally legitimate greivances. Does it (a) attempt to bring the criminals in question to trial, and (through other means) settle the greivances, or (b) invade a few more countries and piss off a few more million people?
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, sometimes people die. Sometimes in large quanities. Yes, we should punish Al-Qaeda and put them in jail, no question about it, but geez, people overreacted to September 11th. You can't get too emotional about how deal out punishment. You have to look at it calmly.
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:5, Insightful)
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches"
I hate to point this out to you but you are a case study in what is wrong with modern, institutionalized Christianity, especially in the U.S.
If you were really a follower of the teachings of Christ and really understood his teachings you would realize Christ was the ultimate "pussy" to use your derogatory term. He was most certainly the most committed pacifist you could ever find.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5.38-41
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26.51-52
If Christ were alive to see people like our President or the officers in our military, tell you about what devoted Christians they are and then rush out to kill people in his name he would be devastated. No matter how justified they think they are, they are committing a hypocrisy of immense proportions.
There are only two paths, you are truly Christian in which case you would be a pacifist, a pussy to use your term, and you wouldn't kill people, no matter how much you were provoked.
Or you are using Christ's name out of political and social convenience because you have to be a good Christian to be elected President or rise in the ranks of the military or in many respects to be an accepted member of yout community especially in the U.S., one of the most fanaticly "Christian" countries. I'm pretty sure the later is the case for 90+% of the Christians in this country. People like the Quakers seem to be the only people who really understand Christ's teachings. Most of the supposedly Christian churches are institutions Christ would have abhored. They are social institutions worshiping him as an idol, regurgatating his teachings but never really listening to them, and certainly not understanding the most basic tenents of his teachings.
Most of our politicians and military officers should admit it. They are Machiavellians or Nietscheans to whom power is the true religion. Christianity is a badly worn facade of social convenience. Deep in their hearts they don't subscribe to it because it is a "pussy's" religion. George W. Bush no doubt found Christ about the same time he realized he and his family wanted him to be President.
Re:Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:4, Insightful)
#1. Those "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" or "resistance".
You have a point that U.S. troops are legitimate military targets - but the bombings of the Red Cross, the UN offices and Iraqi police are in fact terrorist.
Also, the groups attacking us aren't "freedom fighters" they are on one hand Baathists dead-enders and foreign Islamists - neither group is fighting for freedom, they have no problem with violent oppression per se, they just want to be the ones doing the oppressing. If we totally botch the occupation and transition to Iraqi self-government we may in fact see a popular uprising and genuine freedom fighters, but the current bunch aren't.
Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.
You may be right - but I have to say it will probably be somewhat more democratic than the last regime. The fact that each faction is heavily armed is probably better than the alternative - that one side would be heavily armed and the others defenseless. I think the only hope of any kind of just peace between the different groups is federalism - democracy is somewhat less important. The Sunni's, Kurds, Chaldeans etc. are very aware that a lynch mob is a perfectly democratic - the majority is in enthusiastic agreement and the dissenter is about to cease his dissent.
Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam"
True, but after the first gulf war Saadam wrapped himself in the Koran as a way of solidifying his support and casting his conflict with America as being the U.S. against Islam rather than against Iraq. His own rhetoric became very religious, he added "God is Great" to the flag, began mandatory religious instruction to the schools, increased religious programing on state media, opened new mosques etc. To a large extent this was a defensive measure to forestall Wahabbi and Shia fundamentalist incursions into Iraq but it was also a way of rallying broader Arab and Muslim support.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack.
True, but I think the WTC is the ultimate rationale of the war (I find the "blood for oil" argument unconvincing - at least by itself). After 9/11 the doctrine has been that not only terrorists but their state sponsors are fair game. To some degree this goes for ALL state sponsors not just ones that sponsored Al Quaeda specifically. Of all the state sponsors of terrorism there are good arguments to be made that Iraq was the most immediately threatening. Unlike the others Iraq was in direct conflict with the U.S. - we were imposing the embargo, the no-fly zone, occasional cruise missile attacks by the Clinton administration. I think it is reasonable to assume that Saadams main interest in pursuing relationships with terrorists was to use them as a weapon against his immediate enemy - the U.S. rather than against Israel as is the case with Syria, or as a way to promote a religious doctrine throughout the middle east as is the case with Iran. And I think it is still likely that Iraq's support for terrorism included at least a nascent relationship with Al Queada. It was the Clinton administration that first alleged direct ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda. And such ties make sense - Saadam's preferred secular arab nationalist groups like Abu Nidal seem to have become less effective just as he was wrapping himself in the new Islamic flag of Iraq. He had started to support Islamist groups like Hamas so Al Quaeda's religious nature was no barrier to him. For Bin Laden's part he has always been more than willing to use "infidel" allies against his enemy of the moment - hell, he allied with US against the soviets and was pretty tight with Pakistan until very recently (I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during Armitiges first conversation with Musharef right after 9/11).
Re: Osama and the WTC (Score:4, Insightful)
If the US wasn't dependent upon foreign oil, we wouldn't have been over there in the first place, and there would have been no reason (however twisted) for attacking us.
You don't see many Africans bombing buildings over here.
Why?
We aren't occupying any African countries, that's why.
(And before you bring up the Lockerbie bombing, note that that occured after Reagan bombed Libya.)
If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have.
George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements."
Re: Osama and the WTC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a mistake you are making. The guys at IraqiLinux or whatever are most likely upper class or upper middle class. People who own computers in Iraq right now are certainly not working class (especially given that most Iraqis lost some of their wealth with the breakdown of the banking system). These guys most likely had food even during a tyranny likes Saddam's. You may not realize it but in most of these poor or developing countries, the people you come into contact on the internet are the upper end of the economic class. This class generally does ok even during a war or some catastrophe. Even people you see being interviewed on tv are the upper end. They are the elites. The poor, working class, and lower middle class* do not get the same treatment. I mean, just watch a tv interview where some guy from say Kuwait is being interviewed. Do you think this guy is working class? Most likely not. How about China? How many tv reports have you seen from the interior of the country? Do you know that most of the Chinese you see on tv are from the wealthier areas?
When someone setups a website from say Colombia, that person is doing ok. The vast majority of the population won't waste their money and time on things like websites. All the issues you read from these websites are skewed towards the upper end.
It's same with media from foreign countries. If you go and read print media (this is available online; just check out Google News or something), what you read is totally different from what the general population reads. What you read is generally the English-speaking newspapers which are geared towards foreigners and the elites. The issues the elites deal with are not the same as faced by the general population.
What I say applies to the vast majority of poor or developing countries on earth. When you meet some guy in a chat, or a message board, or in a game, these guys are actually the upper end of the spectrum. You hardly ever meet the "regular" people. Most of the time, these people don't have the money or time for computers/etc. Also, most of the general population does not speak English (assuming English isn't a major official language). The people who DO speak English, are the elites.
So the next time you meet someone from China, or Iraq, or Kuwait, or Bolivia, or Pakistan, or Bulgaria, or Tanzania, or whatever, keep that in mind. Is someone representative of the population, or are they part of the elite clique in these poor countries?
(* Most poorer countries have a TINY middle class (relative to richer countries). So most are either working class, poor, or upper class. This means that the people you meet online are actually have a good job, good house, etc) Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the PATRIOT act was signed into law, I didn't like a lot of it, but I was one of the people saying "don't get your panties in a wad. Congress and the President are doing their best at legally stepping up enforcement, and due to the urgency they're doing so by re-treading RICO laws. Anything which turns out to be unconstitutional will get struck down by the courts, and life will go on."
Sure enough, some of those provisions of the new law are being tested against our constitutional rights via the court system. This is how our system of government is supposed to work. Bravo for American government!
There's still a few more elements I would like to see struck down, but some of the enforcement powers in PATRIOT have also made a difference in our ability to avert another attack on the scale of what we saw in 2001. Our democratic system of checks and balances is not perfect, and certainly not efficient, but it seems to work better than anything else that I've seen.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now (most Senators and a sizeable # of Congressmen are either lawyers or have been in service for a number of years) to have been able to make the decision that its unconstitutional and not even bothered to vote for or sign it in the first place.
Passing something with so many bluntly unconstitutional clauses, just to say "we're doing *something* (even if for now its the wrong thing)" is just plain poor leadership.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Law is a complex topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. That's why we have more than one Supreme Court justice. You will notice that a 9-0 decision does not happen often on the big issues. It's also why we have more than one political party.
Re:And??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be proof that the system works if and when the appeals are exhausted and the ruling still stands.
Our democratic system of checks and balances requires that checks are possible. If one man can order anyone, US citizen or not, locked away for life without charge and without even the ability to see a lawyer, we have no "democratic system of checks and balances", we have a king.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Congress and the President were 'doing their best' and temporarily doing a power grab to defend us poor Americans from the evil terrorist infidels, then why didn't they include a sundown measure in the act where by it would expire after x,y,z number of years? This would give the president and the other branches the power they 'need' while making sure that our civil liberties aren't permanently eroded. If the powers granted in the act turned out to be necessary- then congress could vote on the act when it came up. Congress would have had the time to review the act and maybe read the thing. PATRIOT was pushed through congress in how many days?
The whole act should be repealed- not just parts. I do not believe it has made a difference in our ability to 'avert' another attack. It has been widely known for some time that agents had identified and reported the 9/11 senario as a vulnerability- those reports and warnings were ignored. I am not convinced that the PATRIOT act has helped us do anything but tighten the grip our government holds on us.
Our government is not perfect, and this is a great example of why it must change. No act should be hurried through Congress because our President wants to go to war and his opposition is being called unpatriotic. We shouldn't have to be going through the act and fighting to get parts of it stricken three years after it was passed. This act should never have been there in the first place.
This is a failure of our government not a triumph. It took freedom away and we are now fighting to get it back.
"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Ben Franklin
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
And that's the problem... the impulse to DO SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!! is often a bad one.
Perhaps part of the Hippocratic Oath should become part of the Congressional oath of office... you know, that part which goes, "First, do no harm"...
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... You might be hard pressed to convince Mr. Arar of that, at least in the short term.
Further, and more disturbingly, you're essentially saying that the government can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING it wants to in the short term, since it will only be bound by the constitution after the significant amount of time it takes to challenge it in court.
Re:And??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely because they are elected, my dear Watson. Being elected, they are beholden to the swaying to and fro of the public. Elected officials are always thinking about the next election, and thus anything they can do that says "I did something" is viewed as a positive, even if it's later shown to be unconstitutional. The wronged Congressman can then say "well, I did my part but those liberal/conservative judges knocked it down" and still gain the voter's support.
That is why the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted our government to be a troika of a sorts. The Executive and Legislative branches are elected and can follow the will of the people. The Judicial branch is not elected and thus (in theory) not subject to the whims of the passing fancy of a public mob. This is a Good Thing, because it's times like these that judges are called upon to do unpopular things. The fact that they can do so largely without facing the ire of voters means they don't have to worry about their political skins like elected officials do.
You know, the longer I view the Constitution, the more brilliant I think the framers were. Truly men of vision, trying to set down a system of fair, just laws in which freedom could endure. What a shame we've made such a mess of it since then.
Re:And??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could you elaborate on that? Do you have any names or other references to back that statement up? I don't mean names of just any terrorists who we've captured, like Abu Zubaida. I mean names of guys who's capture was actually aided by provisions of the Patriot Act.
Bush emphasised his sucess in protecting us by pointing out that "twenty-eight months have passed since September the 11th, 2001--over two years without an attack on American soil." But, the same can be said for the period before 9/11 too, can't it? Aside from that one horrific day, the US was never really under seige by terrorists.
All I see is lots of innocent foreigners and legal immigrants being treated in unacceptable ways with no justification. Maybe american citizens too. I don't really know of any American citizens for sure, and that shouldn't make a difference. However, some people incorrectly believe that what side of the border you were born on should make a difference when we are talking about human rights.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me you would end up with a whole pack of wolves...
When you want to catch a wolf, you use a human. If you want to wipe out wolves you change the habitat in such a way that it does not support wolves. I'm afraid the climate lately has been very friendly to wolves.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you scoff look at the war on Iraq. They wanted to attack Iraq and depose Hussein from the day Bush was inaugerated. Cheney, Perl and Wolfowitz wanted to and wrote about it years before that. 9/11 just gave the Bush crowd a convenient excuse. The fabricated a bunch of unproven ties between Iraq and Al Quida and trumped up non existent WMD's. Presto, they have an excuse to take down Iraq and radicly alter the world to conform to their world view, or at least they thought. It remains to be seen if Iraq turns in to more of a problem than it was under Hussein when the Shia's try to take the power that is their right in a real democracy (though I wager the U.S. will prevent any election that isn't rigged).
I'd argue the Patriot Act is also just a manifestation of the desires of a right wing administration that wanted repressive laws to enforce order and to stifle dissent, 9/11 just made it feasible to pass them. Right wing adminstrations like everyone to either agree with them or shut up. When an administration can spy on anyone without judicial oversight, watch everything you read, everything you buy, they make people live in fear and most people living in fear keep their mouths shut. Ideally they make everyone shut up without even arresting anyone. Though they will arrest and intimidate a few that keep dissenting. That is the thing they want most out of the Patriot Act, an end to criticism of them and a cowering populace.
The fact is the current administration loves 9/11. It is the best thing that could have happened to Bush. Before it happened his popularity was declining and he was looking like a one term President. Afterward he is a towering figure of strength, hard to beat, vote for him or America will go down in flames. Since 9/11 nearly every speech Bush gives is laden with the words terror and terrorism juxtaposed with freedom and patriotism. You are either with us or against us. If you disagree with us you are unpatriotic and soft on terrorists or practicly a terrorist yourself. Every speech is designed to drown America in fear so you will turn to them to "save" you from terrorists lurking in every shadow. The war against terror will never end, and they are the only ones who can fight it, so you have to keep them in power from now to eternity. Fear is a mind killer and the Republicans are using it to great effect to stiffle dissent and to protect their hold on power at all costs.
So the 9th circuit overturned one little piece of the Patriot Act. Well the 9th is the most overturned court and the most reviled by the right wing. Its a propaganda boon for them to say, there they go again, they are a bunch of left wing loons, they aren't with us, they are against us, they are practicly terrorists themselves. See why we need a bunch of right wingers in all the courts. Even if the Supreme Court does overturn this its one little piece and the Bush adminstration will just come back with a bunch of new pieces to replace it. They can currently pass dangerous laws a lot faster than the courts can overturn them. They probably put a few garbage pieces in, in the first place, so a couple would get overturned, people would cheer, and the really bad stuff would still be there.
If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act pretty much the only option is to put Bush and the Republicans in congress out of power in the next election, though we are bucking a head wind in the form of giants piles of cash to brainwash people through TV and the threat of rigged elections thanks to Diebold and the Pentagon's SERVE. The Democrats suck too but I think we all remember now why Republicans t
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, The RCMP ( the Mounties ) just searched a reporters notes, computer, sources for the Toronto Star for information about his case.
From the Star:
Prime Minister Paul Martin has blasted the RCMP for raiding an Ottawa journalist's house in search of leaked information in the case of a Syrian-born Canadian who was detained by the Americans and later deported to Syria. Martin says the RCMP's focus should be on who leaked the information, not who reported it.
They have a Canadian version of the Patriot Act, you see.
Re:Syria (Score:5, Informative)
The US government CHOSE to threaten Arar with deportation to a country that it knew would torture him if "he didn't talk"....and then made true on this threat.
This would be like England sending an American citizen, who was wrongly accused of being a spy for Israel, to Iran......and than claiming that they had no idea Iran might torture him.
"He was detained" by the US, and sent not to his home country, but by the US to be "tortured by Syria".
Re:Syria (Score:3, Insightful)
When the US government starts handing over people to the Korean government for information extraction and then acts shocked that they get tortured, these innocent victims of the US government will hope Bush hasn't totally destroyed all avenues of legal recourse.
He was a Canadian citizen travelling in accordance with normal laws and the US took him prisoner and gave him to Syria specifically so that he could have information extracted from him (without so much as consulting on it with Canada). This was don
Re:And??? (Score:5, Interesting)
I consider myself to be loyal to American ideals, but the treatment of Mr. Arar is enough to inspire someone to become a terrorist.
Imagine being this man's child. Your father disappears for nearly a year and when he is returned to you, he is a shadow of his former self. 40 pounds lighter, limping and unable to get a peaceful night's sleep.
This is unacceptable. I didn't donate a cent to and of the "9-11" charities, but if Mr. Arar was to set up some kind of fund I think I would contribute to pay his lawyers to sue my government.
LK
Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this little fact is going to be the real blow to the current administration. When the Supreme Court looks at the cases before it and decide that, yes, during a time of war the president does have these powers... and, only congress can declare war.
So, Mr. Bush... *you* do not have these powers.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
How TF did this get modded as insightful? The Patriot Act, specifically the provisions that were found unconstitutional, allow for "secret detentions" where lawyers could not consult for those who were "terrorists" (in this case Mr. Arar). Well, that's great, but if a prisoner can't see the charges against him and neither can he obtain a lawyer, he's screwed... and that's what happened to Mr. Arar.
Re:Canada approved of the deportation! (Score:3)
The US government was not the only party complicit in Maher Arar's deportation. The Canadian government allowed Arar to be deported after US government officials consulted with Canadians.
I believe you are wrong. According to every news report I have seen, Canada was neither consulted nor informed about his deportation, a statement made both by the US and Canada. Picking a random one from Google:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVN ews/1074772060027_197/?hub=Canada
While the US may have p
Patriot Act is Unpatriotic (Score:5, Funny)
What The World Has Been Waiting For (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, I'm freed to give this advise!
"Darl, what you are doing is wrong, stop it."
Maybe now he'll listen.
A Small Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
What Slashdot readers and other techies should be particularly concerned with is that, under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism now encompasses many computer crimes which have nothing to do with terrorism. Deface a web site? You're a terrorist. It also allows wiretaps and other intrusions without the hard-nosed rules that usually come with warrants, as long as it's placed under the crime of terrorism -- which now includes even minor computer crimes. The EFF has posted its detailed analysis of the Patriot Act, and how it affects people concerned with electronic freedoms here [eff.org].
While this is a minor victory, hopefully this is the first of many parts ruled unconstitutional.
NOT the USSC! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A Small Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the much-worse provisions of Patriot II were tucked into the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress last week. So, if you want to make a difference, call up your congresscritter and mention how relieved you are at this temporary reversal of Patriot I and how you really don't want to see more of these unamerican laws passed. You could also donate money or time to interest groups: EFF, EPIC, ACLU, whoever's most likely to throw Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney out of office, etc.
Re:A Small Victory (Score:3)
Furthermore, the number of decisions out of the 9th Circuit that get overturned is high enough that the rest of the country rarely pays any attention to what they have to say, except possibly to determine what the law isn't (or won't be).
Actually they have if not the lowest then one of the lowest percentages of overturned rulings. But they do hear most of the important
Re:A Small Victory (Score:5, Informative)
It is the policy of the Justice Department to support the implementation and preservation of all laws in the book. If an appeal rules one defunct, then they must appeal to preserve it until told its "not a priority".
Trust me, to Ashcroft and Ridge, Patriot IS a priority.
EFF Patriot Act Analysis (Score:5, Informative)
They have an analysis [eff.org] on their site about the Patriot Act and what it means for us.
Here's also another article [eff.org] about why we should be concerned about it.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean wants to ID you (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Howard Dean isn't a complete liberal (Score:5, Funny)
This was a no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a case of a super-vague law that prohibits someone from engaging in speech that basically no ordinary person would even find to be controversial speech. I'm surprised that the DOJ even threatened them with enforcement of this in this case. It should have been obvious to them that pursuing some white hat like this would just bust their pet law.
Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)
The part of Act that's unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing patriotic about it if you have any love of liberty or freedom.
Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
How long will our government ignore the (fundamental) elemental threat?
Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed it is unfortunate.
Free speech is used by the ignorant to challenge the educated, freedom of assembly is used by Nazis and the KKK to rally support and intimidate others, the 5th amendment is used by the guilty to avoid self-incrimination, and the 4th is used by criminals to conceal evidence of their crimes.
All of this is, indeed, unfortunate -- and exactly as it was meant to be in a free nation.
phew.... (Score:5, Funny)
phew... now I can safely continue to consult for microsoft...
The problem of fighting violence with violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem of fighting violence with violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the point of defeating the "other side" is to take their land, destroy their factories, etc. There is no way to defeat the "other side" in a war on drugs/terrorism/poverty. You can't stomp out a social ill or political disagreement with force, because there is no physical necessity belonging to the other side that may be destroyed or usurped.
Calling a political policy a "war" doesn't make it so.
everyone could be an enemy... (Score:3, Insightful)
YES!! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's unbelievable... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's unbelievable that we have an attorney general that this concept eludes entirely. No wonder he lost an election to a dead guy before dubya found him.
Remember, when you vote for Bush, you're voting for the "package" deal.
Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Major Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd merely like to point out that this "Part" of the Patriot act is just that, a part of it. This still isn't dealing with any of the true hard issues, such as eavesdropping without a warrant/court order, forcing libraries disclosure of a persons activities, and so on. This is not trully a victory for anyone who really cares about Pravacy, or rather "Your Rights Online." Merely a victory for everyone trying to take a quick shot at this administration.
Just the start (Score:5, Insightful)
Phew (Score:3, Funny)
In related news, Judge Audrey Collin ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In related news, Judge Audrey Collin ... (Score:4, Insightful)
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Defending PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that I'm distinctely in the minority here, but I think the criticisms of the PATRIOT Act are entirely blown out of proportion. I've actually read the PATRIOT Act, and I see very little that matches the wild claims that have been levied against it.
Take for example the infamous Section 215 that civil libertarians claim allows law enforcement to search your library records. Except this power requires the consent of a federal judge, no library records have ever been searched, and such provisions have already been used in other criminal cases. Library records were searched in the hunt for Andrew Cunanan, the man who shot fashion designer Gianni Versace in 1997, and to hunt down the Zodiac killer in New York in 1990. Yet no one raised a fuss about these searches. It is clear that there is a direct double standard at play, fueled by ignorance of the law.
Most of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act specifically extend already existing powers specifically to fight terrorism. Most of them were already codified in law under earlier racketeering statutes such as RICO. Yet no one seemed to question those moves then.
The fact remains that our rights were abused far more heinously during the War on Drugs and the term of Janet Reno as AG than they ever were under Ashcroft. No-knock warrants are far more suspect as far as civil rights are concerned than extending provisions of RICO to terrorism. I fail to see the logic of a system that gives greater protections to Mohammad Atta than it does to Tony Soprano.
If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well. Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened. Several 9/11 conspirators were pulled over just before the attacks - but because the police didn't have access to immigration records or terrorist watch lists they were let go with only a warning. Another event like that is simply intolerable.
The fact is 9/10ths of the arguments against PATRIOT are based in a sense of partisan politics rather than a rational examination of law. Had PATRIOT been a creation of Clinton Administration I doubt anyone would be talking about it, but in a country where partisanship overwhelms common sense on both sides rational discussion about the best way to protect this country from the clear and present danger of terrorism is difficult to find.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:3, Insightful)
The Patriot Act allows the feds to inspect the records BEFORE and at any time if they remotely suspect you of anything.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:3, Interesting)
The standard for issuing a search warrant does not change - there must be "probable cause" for such a search, meaning that a crime does not necessarily have to have been committed before such a search would be authorized. The rules under the PATRIOT Act are the same rules that would be applied to any other criminal case in that a judge would have to be consulted and a warrant issued. The only difference is that the PATRIOT Act makes this process swifter and allows for such searches to occur without the know
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
And what divine power do you possess that no other human on the face of the planet possesses that allows you to make such a claim as fact? Most of the 9/11 conspirators were here legally on visas issued by our own beloved State Department which already had access to such vital information but failed to research the applications adequately.
The crux of the matter is that most of the provisions of the PATRIOT act are unneccessary and law enforcement and courts have proven time and time again that they are capable of handling terrorism cases using their existing laws and powers.
why would interagency cooperation be killed? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) How does the PA ameliorate this?
2) How does killing the PA mean that the interagency cooperation provisions cannot be passed separately (what makes it unconstitutional on its own?)
I wasn't a fan of the previous administration (although I am liberal and dislike GWB fairly intensely), but the extra provisions in the PA overstep a lot of bounds. For example, the library provision also forbids the donors of information to notify you of a search, a provision that is not consistent with previous law. In addition, I don't believe that a search for library info. has to be approved by a judge, but only by a clerk - this significantly lowers the barrier to getting a warrant.
The admission (I don't have the pointer right now) that the PA is being used primarily to go after nonterrorist criminal activity doesn't give me any reason to accept the promise that the PA will not be misused with anything other than a large bag of rock salt. The evasion and doublespeak on the PA's support website doesn't make me trust the people responsible for enforcing it any better. The attempts to add powers to the PA under cover of secrecy do not amplify my (already miniscule) faith in the ability of the PA to achieve its designed goals.
Giving trustworthy people the sort of power embodied in the PA is questionable - eventually power corrupts (although absolute power is "pretty neat" (Clancy, from somewhere else). Giving that power to someone many consider untrustworthy is a mistake. The words, evasion, and untruthfulness of the current administration do not lead me to trust them with the power the PA invests in them. I trusted WJC more than I trust GWB, and I wouldn't trust either of them with the PA.
Information-Sharing Provisions In PATRIOT (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I recommend people read the PATRIOT Act before commenting on it. For reference, the specific statutes that accomplish this are Title II Section 203(b) which increases the ability for law enforcment agencies to share wiretap information and Title II Section 203(d) which allows for the sharing of data accumulated in FISA searches.
Furthermore, Title VII also specifically modifies the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) to remove specific statutory limits to inform
Re:Information-Sharing Provisions In PATRIOT (Score:3, Informative)
Magistrates aren't judges, and their powers are limited compared to real judges; they don't even necessa
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why it should be expunged.
If it isn't needed, then why put it in?
The fact remains that our rights were abused far more heinously during the War on Drugs and the term of Janet Reno as AG than they ever were under Ashcroft.
While I agree that the WOD is much more threatening to civil liberties than PATRIOT, why do you support putting more power into the hands of the government when they obviously don't need it (by your own admission, re:librarians)?
Also, the Reno-Ashcroft remark is pure trollbait. I haven't seen Ashcroft sprinting out to repeal any of the WOD provisions, so they stand in full force as they were under Reno. And the laws were passed by the Congress, not the USAG.
If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well.
Good!
Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened.
Your crystal ball is scratched, scuffed, and otherwise translucent.
The fact remains that, despite the passage of PATRIOT, information sharing between agencies remains spotty. And the reason for the lack of exchange is not due to fuzzy-headed liberals blocking the governments efforts. It is due to the time honored tradition of 'empire building' in government agencies.
That behavior will not end with the expansion or the repeal of PATRIOT.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me say up front that I'm not a lawyer. But the biggest problem I see here is that there is very little if any oversight. Traditional search warrants are (or become) public record, making it possible for people to check for abuse. For example, in California, after a wiretap is completed, law enforcement must contact every party that was heard on the line to let them know they had been recorded. With the gag rules in the PATRIOT ACT, there's no after-the-fact oversight to make sure the judge who granted the request was doing the right thing and that the enforcement agencies aren't routinely asking for wide-reaching powers. You say that, "no library records have ever been searched," but you don't know that because of the gag rules.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:4, Informative)
Before the Patriot Act, one could be investigated if one was a spy suspect. Now, the provision is that there is an ongoing investigation related to espionage or terrorist activity. This is a big web to spin and the FBI spins it without oversight.
Then there is the gag order that can be unilaterally applied by the FBI. Those that handed over info the FBI can be restricted from ever telling you that this info was given to the FBI.
However, 215 is not the main problem, the expansion of the National Security Letters (NSL) in the Patriot Act is the real problem. The FBI can issue a NSL without a Federal Court order if there is an on-going investigation that is taking place. Before, NSLs could be issued if it was believed that you were a foreign spy. And without any court oversight, the FBI has a "free-hand" to issue NSLs whenever they want. This is a big legal loophole in the Patriot Act.
What can one do with a NSL? The FBI can get info from your phone, ISP, banks, and credit card companies. Remember, all this without a court order. Additionally, a gag order can be issue to those companies to not disclose that they gave the FBI the information about you.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a LOT of things that should have stopped the Sept 11th attacks from happening, but none of them did. One more thing that *should* prevent it, isn't necessarily going to...
Th
Oh Crap! What are we going to do now!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
In all seriousness, this won't have much of an effect on personal privacy for average Joe and I imagine the powers that be will do everything in their power to keep the steamroller running, but a good swift kick in the nuts to the Patriot Act can only be a good thing for those of us that appreciate civil liberties.
Just Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also the most consistently overturned court, so this ruling is definitely not the final word.
Re:Just Remember (Score:4, Insightful)
Stand and be counted if you really think so.
Re:Just Remember (Score:3, Informative)
Here's mine, where's yours?
Here's a couple:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=10561398904 8 1 [law.com]
http://www.nusd.k12.az.us/nhs/gthomson.class/artic les/judicial/9circut.htm [k12.az.us]
Excerpt:
Over the last 20 years, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has developed a reputation for being wrong more often than any other federal appeals court.
By both measures, the 9th Circuit was wrong more often than any other circuit in the dozen years Posner surveyed, though 1997
Re:Just Remember (Score:3, Informative)
If/when it gets appealed, then it will go to the 9th, who I'm guessing will uphold the ruling on the initial review, and if appealed the full panel of the court will probably also uphold it. The full panel doesn't get overturned nearly as often as the initial three judge panels.
In fact the full panel is often the group that does the overturning. A prime example is the
Re:Just Remember (Score:3, Informative)
Upshot: the 9th in 2002, at 75%, was marginally worse than the 2nd, 7th and 6th (67%, 67%, and 71%, respectively), and much better than the 4th, 5th and 8th (100%, all). It was also noticeably better than state courts (81%). Only the 11th, D.C., and the federal circuit were noticeably better at 50% each.
The 'heavily reversed and overly liberal 9th' is one of those memes that has an ounce of truth to it obscured by a ton of p
bout time (Score:4, Informative)
Russ-Russ! (Score:4, Insightful)
(At least that's what Russ keeps saying in the campaign contribution letters I keep getting...)
it's been interesting to see (Score:4, Insightful)
the laws continue to be about controlling us, only the rationale changes.
Read the Ruling carefully? (Score:5, Informative)
So while the people who are jumping up and down for joy about pieces being over-ruled may have to wait for a while, I'm personally happy that we are looking at suggested corrections. I don't by any means think the patriot act is perfect, but I much prefer people trying to improve on it rather than just throw it aay all together.
a step in the right direction (Score:3, Insightful)
You know...the more I think about it, I get the feeling that both Ashcroft and Bush failed their history classes.
The worst part is that I also get the feeling that Stalin/Lenin won without a fight.
Aid & Comfort to the Enemy (Score:3, Interesting)
Chip H.
WHAT THE??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really need to find another country to move to.
Re:WHAT THE??? (Score:3, Informative)
Lets say that you work the helpdesk at WhizzyFast ISP. Someone calls you up, and asks you how to connect. You explain how the dialup process works, and step him through the settings he needs on his computer.
Three days later the men in black put you in a cell and leave you there for a month or so without even telling you what you did (if you haven't been paying attention, this is Bush's favorite tactic).
So what happened? Well, after the per
A-frigging-men (Score:4, Insightful)
My grandfather was kidnapped and interrogated for five years by the Polish secret police because they were absolutely sure he was a spy. He wrote a book about it [snailshell.com]. It's an excellent read for anyone who wonders about the dark side of "national security".
That all seemed, at the time, to be a failing of communism. But recent events remind me that it can happen any time and place that the people pledge thier uncritical allegiance to their leaders.
I love this country and want it to be the best it can. With that in mind I keep a close eye on those in charge to be sure they don't run amok. I wish more people did. I hope enough do. The leaders have certainly been running amok in the past few years.
Cheers.
As long as we have the Second Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)
What part of the Constitution gives someone the right to assist any other person/group/organization? The freedom of speech? I think that's stretching it. But OK, but what if you were to give them something? That's not protected under the freedom of speech.
And if it's unconstitutional, then why is it OK to give them "good" advise and not "bad" advise. What determines what is "good" and what is "bad"... wouldn't the first ammendment be the first ammendment no matter whether it's good or bad?
But of course, this was the 9th District Court, and they haven't made a constitutional law decision that was actually based on the constitution in some time. Basically, the 9th just gave the OK for rogue organizations within the U.S. to give Al Qaida strategic information about oh... nuclear plants or chemical plants... without the risk of penalty.
Good job 9th!
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's not really a good way to define it that doesn't lump US in that category.
For those that say "you just know", that's not good enough.
Sure there is (Score:3, Interesting)
Terrorist: A non-government actor seeking political change through violence directed intentionally against civilian populations.
I don't think that governments engage in terrorism, but that's just semantics. Doesn't mean I don't think they do bad things, though.
Re:Sure there is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure there is (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you could explain how the French Resistance, the Founding Fathers, etc. directed violence against civilian populations, as the parent poster noted.
Re:Sure there is (Score:3, Insightful)
The tea at the Boston tea party was owned by the British East India company. Founding investment in the firm was overwhelmingly from the British Monarchy of 60-80 years previous, and the firm enjoyed a royal monopoly, and employed British military personel as its "para-military" security forces, ergo it was a government
Re:Sure there is (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely, you are thinking about the revolution. Which is something completely different.
And the difference between throwing tea overboard and blowing up a building is that no one can reasonably expected to get hurt by some tea thrown overboard. Acts of property distruction are just that (or maybe even lumped in with vandalism-- not terrorism). Explosions are messy, and in a populated area (i.e. in a house) an explosion can reasonably be expected to hurt someone.
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
> person's or organization's part to lend support to
> groups that are engaged in terrorist activities.
Do the words "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
-Chris
But who labels the terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine, for a moment if you will, that some group X is labelled as a terrorist group by the government, and this group's members happen to think they're not terrorists and don't support terrorism. There are two groups of professionals they might desperately like to hire, lawyers to plead their case, and public relations experts to present their case clearly. It's only fair in a free society that the accused be afforded a chance to defend themselves in this manner.
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
A lawyer comes. Offers to help us lobby for reduced taxes. Shows us the ways to legally get around the taxes. Shows us how to roll our own to save money.
We see, after all our violence doesn't do squat, that peaceful means can actually work. We'd stop bothering with all the weapons stockpiles, and take public speaking classes and ta
Re:For the Dean Supporters. (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't to say that Dean HAS changed his views, but when someone quotes a two-year-old speech as evidence of a person's current views, I get a little suspicious. Hasn't Dean said anything about this idea since then?
Re:For the Dean Supporters. (Score:3, Interesting)
I say this only halfway in jest. Mention the President and you'll get a score of rants explaining in rabid detail why he's the second coming of Joe McCarthy, but worse. Listen, Slashdotters, and listen carefully: neither party has a monopoly on boneheads. If you hate one of them because you think they love everything you detest, you'd better darn well make sure your own guys aren't rooting for the same thing.
Re:For the Dean Supporters. (Score:3, Insightful)
I look for one thing in a president.
Keep congress in check.
That is all... and that is something this one has done piss poorly.
For the record, president's don't create law. But, everyone here knows that... right?
P.S. It may be a bit cynical to only expect one thing from a president, but I've come to realize that expecting more is pretty unrealistic.
Re:Where's the ACLU? (Score:4, Informative)
ACLU and the Patriot act [aclu.org]
Hopefully, that will cure your rant. You can stop foaming now.