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.'"
this is defending MY rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:3, Interesting)
What does this do the section 314(a) searches that we must do?
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want the government to be able to find out you paid $20 to paladin-press.com for that bomb making book, donated $180 to the EFF, and then spent $120 in a house of ill repute in Las Vegas? If so, then keeping financial records confidential is not an issue for you.
But if you want your private affairs private then you want your financial affairs private as well.
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks that we are today living in the world of 1984 is dillusional. Micheal Moore can put out a movie tearing into the President, and Rush Limbaugh can tear into powerful govenment officials on his show, and its ok.
The reason to stop things like this act now would be to prevent a slippery slope that could lead to a 1984-like world. But we are nowhere near that right now.
There are way to many people that talk as if they are in fear of being hunted down by Ashcroft and thrown into a dungeon in Washington. I guess its fun to fantasize that you are Patrick Henry or something, but get real.
We have historically unprecedented freedoms in America (even with the PATRIOT act now). Striking down this act would simply ensure that (PATRIOT act ^ 10) is not legislated so we still have these rights in 50 years.
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
An excellent comment. Just to add to your point, we could be very close to a 1984-like world and we just don't know about it. This is siding on paranoia I know, but (before this judgement) with reduced judicial oversight, what is to stop the executive branch (or DoD) from making mass secret arrests and refusing Habeus Corpus?
I hate sounding so alarmist, and I am agreeing with you, but the folks who are outraged are mostly trying to make a point -- and I think that there is a pretty good reason for the outrage. Civil liberties take lifetimes to fight for, and seconds to lose. Judging from all of the freedom rhetoric, shouldn't we expect the federal government to at least pretend that they're defending our civil liberties? (Damn, that sounds naively idealistic)
1984 world and today (Score:5, Insightful)
What scares me is the fact that the Bush administration is putting mechanisms in place which can be used to arbitrarily make your life miserable for whatever reasons the executive sees fit. These include no-fly lists, among other things. It scares me that these mechanisms could be used in ways which could effectively silence certain forms of political discourse.
I am not afraid that I might become the next Jose Padilla. I am afraid that I might become punished for talking about airport security, etc. and that I might be forbidden to fly or have other arbitrary sanctions put on my activities which may be difficult to challenge in court.
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully ONE of our senators, Russ Feingold (D-WI), actually has a clue [archipelago.org].
I, for one, do NOT believe that the USA PATRIOT Act has stopped ANY terrorist attack, anymore than the No-Child Left Behind Act. After all, we haven't had any terrorist attacks since NCLB passed, right? Repeat after me: Correlation != Causation.
The failures that led to 9/11, as I understand them, were not from a lack of power or authority by intelligence agencies. It was due to poor communication and poor management. The "war on terror" is, IMHO, the new "war on drugs". It's an Orwellian war - never-ending war on a faceless enemy that you must support or else you are unpatriotic.
Are terrorists out there? Yes. Not all of them are hail from Saudi Arab^H^H^HIraq. Some are American citizens (McVeigh, for one. And anyone remember the Unabomber?) Will giving up our essential freedoms protect us from the terrorists? No. I don't feel any safer on an airplane now that I know no one on board has a tweezers, nail clips, or cuticle scissors. I don't feel safer knowing the the FBI can demand my library reservations, financial records, and health history, all without my knowledge (secret searches), with no judicial oversight. If you think I'm exaggerating, I suggest you read up a bit [aclu.org].
But the terrorists are really out to get us, folks. They tell us every day, and they are not kidding.
So who are we fighting again? The Eurasians or Eastasians? [online-literature.com]
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thankfully ONE of our senators, Russ Feingold (D-WI), actually has a clue.
Russ Feingold is a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. This law blatantly violates the First Amendment by outlawing "issue advocacy" ads within 60 days of a general election. It is truly astounding how some on the left can worship a guy who is doing everything within his considerable power to overturn the Constitution -- in the name of that very Constitution no less!
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I work in the banking industry helping bankers present classes over the internet (yeech) and know for a fact they do WAY more than have some computer flag account transfers.
There are all sorts of automatic checks, plus the "know your customer" encouragement, which ammounts to little more than "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" go find out what your neighbors are doing type digging through transactions.
My point; don't count on that 10k number
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:3, Informative)
good idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
While we're at lets make a law that puts some accountability on those that write laws later found to be unconstitutional.
Re:good idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
In all seriousness, I'm sure that most everyone in Congress thinks that they're in it (at some level) to help their fellow citizens, but laws (and the accumulated federal code) are just about overwhelming, and have unintended consequences.
Re:good idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe this indicates a systemic problem - like the grotesque growth of spaghetti code in a legacy application. ("We don't know how the insides work anymore, so we'll keep building wrappers around everything to try and keep it from getting out of control.")
About the only thing I think the founders forgot when they tried to build a system of checks & balances was some kind of automatic expiration process for laws that aren't "maintained" anymore. There should've been some kind of mechanism that would force the legislators to keep reviewing existing laws, and to let them expire if the legislators didn't think it was worth keeping them around. If such a mechanism were required, I bet legislators would be a lot more focused on keeping the legal code "maintainable".
Re:good idea! (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....
Re:good idea! (Score:3, Interesting)
Question. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question. (Score:4, Interesting)
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,
Re:this is defending MY rights? (Score:3, Funny)
Most Extreme Elimination Challenge!
Yay, Rah, Go Constitution! (Score:3, Insightful)
Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.
Checks and balances is overrated anyway. I mean, those Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution several hundred years ago when there were no terrorists. Oh wait, didn't they act like terrorists against the British...?
Re:Yay, Rah, Go Constitution! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they did. They attempted to strike civilian targets and were ready to kill up to 30,000 people that worked in two enormous buildings. They also would have set off nuclear bombs to destroy all inhabitants of a city if they could get their hands on one. Yes, they were definitely exactly like Osama.
I think you might have meant to say that they used guerrilla warfare, which is true. But its a little different than "terrorism"...
Re:Yay, Rah, Go Constitution! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay, Rah, Go Constitution! (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why we will be targets for terrorism. They have declared war against us. Jihad; look it up. So, since they are trying to save lives in the goal to wipe out the infidels, why would it be a problem if they set off a 50 megaton device in the center of NY, LA, or Chicago? If they win, they can justify it later as saving total lives, and someone else will target them for being so conceited and pretentious.
The only way to "win" the war on terrorism is to identify why we are targets, and eliminate the reasons. I'll give you a hint, invading a country with very little international support isn't helping. In fact, terrorist organizations control more territory in Iraq than before the war. Look at all the "do not go" zones for American military. They are listed as such because terrorists control them. Terrorists that wouldn't exist if we hadn't invaded their homeland.
When the only country to have used nuclear weapons keeps lecturing others not to do it, it looks pretty bad. Do as we say, not as we do.
Re:Yay, Rah, Go Constitution! (Score:4, Interesting)
How's this? [google.com]
Note especially this definition:
This term has never been translated by Muslims to mean holy war. Instead, it means to struggle or exert oneself to his or her utmost potential. In Islam, there are two levels of jihad. The greater jihad most often refers to the inner struggle against evil within oneself with the goal of self-improvement for the betterment of one's community and the world as a whole. The lesser jihad refers to the struggle on the battlefield in self-defense if Muslims have been attacked and their right to practice their faith has been aggressively taken away. " Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love the transgressors" (Qur'an 2:190). This is an unequivocal statement that only self-defense makes war permissible for Muslims and the goals of war cannot be worldly gain.
Mind you, I agree that a war against "terrorism" is impossible to win, and that addressing injustice in Iraq without addressing injustices we ourselves perpetrate is not going to be especially effective.
But please, don't use that bad definition of jihad, and don't claim that the Islamic world has declared war on us. It's not nearly that simple.
Re:Yay, Rah, Go Constitution! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're looking only at the body count, which let me first say is a skewed way of examining things, the US occupation so far probably was not any less bloody than Saddam's reign.
Re:Yay, Rah, Go Constitution! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no. The Founding Fathers' M.O. did not include targeting civilians with intent to kill, holding whole theaters full of movie-goers or schools full of children for ransom and slaughter... unless you're going to define terrorism as the use of military force against agents of the ruling governemnt to influence the political direction of a country.
But that would mean you'd have to call Iraqi terrorist groups "terrorists" instead of "militant
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.
Re:Yay, Rah, Go Constitution! (Score:3, Interesting)
In all fairness, they used guerilla tactics. Relative to they era, targeting the highest ranking officers first and firing from the shadows could be considered a form of terrorism because it did not uphold the "accepted rules" of war. When compared to today's standards, a sniper targeting a cornel back then is not too different than a terrorist beheading a hostage today. It can be argued that guerilla fighters in the
Supreme Court (Score:3, Insightful)
I moderate Mr. Marreo +1 : Liberty.
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
ACLU, Republicans, You and I (Score:3, Insightful)
ACLU has been moderately successful in chipping away provisions of the Patriot Act, desperately trying to limit its broad sweeping powers acquired during the aftermath of Sept 11, when the notion of security drew a shadowy veil over our eyes and across measures of oversight and provided us with the promise of a secure land but taking away our freedom in its place. The people behind it were clever enough to threaten us with more attacks and a terrible outcome if these measures were not passed, but put nothing in place to provide oversight, nothing in place to limit its ever stretching arm, reaching out to our private lives.
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.
Republicans now more than ever seem to be under the belief that they could throw any dissenting american in to prison and blow up anyone voicing their dissent outside the US and are on a collission course with the stark reality that while we may never die from a terrorist attack, we will surely feel the ever tightening grip of a police state.
Please remind me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks in advance.
Re:Please remind me. (Score:3, Informative)
Russ Feingold. Wisconsin. (Score:3, Informative)
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
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:ACLU, Republicans, You and I (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans? (Score:3, Insightful)
You had something going there until this last bit of dribble.
I hardly think you can blame Republicans when 98 senators [senate.gov] and 337 Representatives [house.gov] voted for the bil
Few Clarifications.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is the neoconservatives who initially steered the Republican party so far to the right that questioning their direction or leadership was unpatriotic. But Republican party on a whole is clueless if they dont wake up and realize where they will end up in the near future. The party is so tunnel minded that they cant see beyond George Bush, heck, GW cant see beyond GW. Thats the folly. This country i
Who wrote this part? (Score:5, Interesting)
Missed something... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Missed something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missed something... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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].)
Eff press release, wikipedia link (Score:3, Informative)
Ohmygod! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, damn, I have to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Something makes me think 'the terrorists' and Ashcroft have frighteningly similar opinions on -that-, though. Both would rather live in a theocracy...
Holy cow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holy cow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holy cow (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently, you've stumbled across the secret constitution with the 100 Patriot-Flag-Waving-Nationalism-Anti-Terrorism-Ji
Unfortunately, you failed to read the 100th amendment, which states that you aren't allow to reveal any of these amendments anywhere. Of course, I'm not allowed to reveal that amendment either.
Well, it looks like we will soon both be charged with something very vague and terrorism-related, and sent off to Guantanamo. Flee the country while you can, citizen.
Re:Holy cow (Score:4, Funny)
Slightly off-topic but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slightly off-topic but (Score:3, Insightful)
Praise Jebus and pass the Master Card! (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in an academic library that's also a federal depository. I've had to deal first hand with the implications of this POS raping of our rights
I also live in a city where provisions of this act were (mis)used not to go after terrorists, but after "garden variety" criminals.
In making purchases off of the internet or at a store, I had to pick and choose what I wanted to buy with a CC. Afterall, in the hands of an overzealous prosecutor with an axe to grind, my purchase of the book/film for Lolita and The Tin Drum could be turned into "evidence" of my pedophilla or some other such rot. "Would it play well in Peoria" became my yardstick for all CC purchases. No really. I deal with a government that would inflict such craplaw as the Patriot Act on us with extreme paranoia.
(But, one part of me has a tiny twinge of sorrow at watching this act of justice delayed. It's mightily hard to be fiscally irresponsible when you've switched to a "cash diet" to make all your major purchases. It's going to be a little harder for me to be "good" now.)
Judicial Tyrany (Score:3, Interesting)
We need some kind of oversight, because the Executive may abuse the power. Not every executive will be as trustworthy as others in regard to protecting the rights of individuals.
One thing to consider, however, is that with judicial oversight, you can have another form of tyrany, where an overzealous judge prevents an Executive from doing his job to protect the People. We only have an appeals process for this, which hopefully results in a well-reasoned balance of rights. However, as the judicial confirmation process becomes more and more politicized, you can expect more and more partisans being placed in lifetime-tenured posts.
No judge is ever going to rule less power for the Judicial branch. I, for one, do not welcome our judicial overlords. Lex Rex.
There is no right to security (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such right. There cannot be, because it is impossible to provide it, as long as people continue to meet each other. At some point you have to trust your neighbor not to try to kill you; in part, you rely on people being mostly reasonable, and in part, you earn the trust by behaving in a reasonable manner towards your neighbor.
Man,do I dislike the "freedom-hating" Patriot act. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush calls the terrorists "freedom-haters", but ironically I see his administration as one of the biggest "freedom-reducers" in the past 20 years. Heck, under their own logic, by cutting our freedoms, aren't they giving the freedom-hating terrorists what they want?
Is having a free country hard? Yes. But as a country, don't we pride ourselves on doing the right thing, even if it's tough? I thought we did. Is there an alternative to the Patriot act that would preserve our safety and yet not place such restrictive burden on our freedom? I think there is, but it doesn't feel like we even tried looking for it.
P.S. Would the Patriot act have prevented 9/11? This is a guessing game, and it's hard to characterize such a giant bloated act, but most of the provisions under the Patriot act don't seem like they even begin to address the real problems that allowed 9/11 to happen. So ironically, we've given away a lot of freedom for a bunch of laws that wouldn't have made us safer.
The REAL problem of the Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that the government uses it against NON-TERRORISTS.
Not only that, the government has used it against non-terrorists MORE THAN it has been used against terrorists.
It's a bad law, just like the DMCA, that gives the executive branch too much power without the benefit of the checks and balances of which our government is based.
Read the law itself (Score:3, Interesting)
The law in question that got bobbed got a stargate fansite in the dip as I recall.. The posting's in slashdot's archives, but i've not the time to dig for it.
victory for whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about "a victory for all of the United States" ?
I have been saying this all along (Score:4, Insightful)
Not Nazi-America After All? (Score:4, Funny)
Now half you people actually shouldn't be posting in this thread, given how you've been incessantly bitching on how this is the Patriot Act was the beginning of Imperial America, how the system is broken beyond repair, etc, etc, etc. I know it's hard to swallow, but here's a lesson made painfully obvious by this story: THE SYSTEM WORKS. Here's another fact for you-- The founding fathers were obviously more itelligent than you give them credit for. The specifically designed a government around the concept of paranoia, a thought that is ofter lost among the blithering on how their ideas are too antiquated for our time when the first hint of turbulent weather blows our way. Because they were wiser than most of you, extremes such as these always manage to even out; see McCarthyism, Japanese camps in WW2, and any number of other "the sky is falling!" events that this country has somehow survived.
If I could reach past my last 25 posts, you'd be in for a nice, ripe "I told you so."
What the judge actually said... (Score:3, Informative)
"Moralisim" if not morals (Score:5, Insightful)
The legislation of Moralisim is what happens when you cannot pass a ban on a book, so you establish a "community standards" test to allow each community to decide to ban the book because it would be bad to "force them to accept the book." In Moralisim, if you can not achieve the ban, you ban banning the ban...
It's a back-handed logical trick, like arguing to authority, where you open up patchwork of recursively nested micro-fifes. Consider "Dry" neighborhoods in "Wet" cities in "Dry" counties. You get to a place where you can't ban the book, so you ban yourself from controlling the ban on books and leave it up your political constituents to "decide for themselves".
It produces little political kingdoms where vocal extremests and idealogues can stake out parts of the landscape for various dogmatic purposes.
It also "levels the playing field" in a way that isnt right, but that "sounds fair" to those who are not paying proper heed. This ersatz seeming fairness can then be used as "authority" unilaterally. It rases a cloud of uncertainty where any stupid thing becomes possible as an "act of the people" because all "rights" become beasts of equal prescidence.
Consider: I have the right to keep and bare arms, you have the right not to be gunned down at the Circle-K. These two rights do *not* hold equal precidence, the right not to be gunned down is ever-so-more significant. This does *NOT* however mean that the right to keep and bare arms is somehow "punctured" and suddenly goes away. The fact is that these two rights are not really in conflict because the responsable exercise of one doesn't lead enexorably to the violation of the other.
Compare this then to "smoking", you have the right to smoke and I have the right not to. Here the right not to smoke trounces the right to smoke. You are asked to step out side. It didn't have to be that way, if the smokers had always "smoked responsibly" by observing other peoples right to smoke, they would have stepped out side all along and there woudn't have to be bans. (They probably wouldn't throw polyester butts on the gound either were responsibility the watchword in smokers... 8-) But the refrain of "why do I have to leave, I have the right to somke" with the hidden codicil "anywhere I damn well please no matter what the consequences."
See, the responsibility has gone, along with most of the burden of dilligence and accountability, and so "rights" rule supreme.
This is the inevetable result of Moralist policies. Moralisim is the proverbial washing-of-hands. "We didn't rule on this, it is the will of our populous and our populous has that right." Nudge nudge, wink wink...
The PATRIOT Act is a natural outgrowth of the Moralist agenda. It supports a vacation of responsibility and accountability in the name of preserving the "right to safety." The penetration and disapation of the "right to privacy and due process", it says, must be spent as the inferior right because in the moralist realm whenever two rights come into conflict one must be supreme, a "true right" and one must be defeated utterly as not having really been a right at all.
What's actually kind of funny is that Moralisim is a revival of the old Might makes Right paradigm. We set our ideals up against one another to see which one will beat the other to death in a court of public spectacle.
So there is a hierarchy of rights, but only in the presence of responsibilities and accountabilities.
But it really _isn't_ any kind of balancing act. You are not supposed to pay for one right, like safety, by betraying another, like due process.
You are supposed to pay for rights with the currency of responsibility.
We harvest today the fruits of terrorisim becau
It's an Ashcroft/Bush problem, not a real one (Score:4, Interesting)
President Bush routinely tacks the following paragraph onto the end of almost every executive order [whitehouse.gov], to attempt to evade judicial oversight of that order.
- This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity
by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies,
entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.
That appears at the end of every executive order issued this year, except the ones raising pay for senior politically appointed officials. Other presidents would do this occasionally for minor administrative matters, but Bush does it every time.Re:This means nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
But (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, IMHO, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Supreme Court ruled on the case, and overturned the appellate's decision on a technicality. The analysis I read (not my own) was that this could likely be used in another juristiction to force the issue directly to the supreme court on merits. Hence we have the (certainly unconstitutional and probably meaningless) Pledge Protection Act which is supposed to remove the issue of the Pledge from the eye of the court.
Now, it seems to me that this case is certainly going to be one which will go before the Supreme Court just because it is an important legal controversy.
My own opinion (layman) is that the Supreme Court will rule, as they did in case of Hamdi and the Guantamamo Bay detainees, that executive power cannot be removed from judicial oversight. Of course, they could also rule as they did in Padilla that the case was improberly brought before the court and send it back on a technicality. My layman's opinion though with the Padilla case is that Hamdi represents a strong enough precident to essentially challenge the constitutionality of Padilla's classification, so the technicality doesn't really give the government much wiggle room once the Habeus petition is properly filed.
Now to the case in question. Hamdi is of particular importance because in my analysis of how the court will rule (Layman's analysis IANAL, etc) because it exposes deep divisions within the Court with regard to the level of executive and legislative authority allowed within the framework of the War on Terror. In the opinion of the Court, even the fact that Hamdi was detained in the theater of operations of an armed conflict did not deny him the right to at least a minimum due process of law and some form of judicial check under Habeus petitions. Notably, the Opinion of the Court was only endorsed by 4 justices (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Breyer) though Souter and Ginsberg's dissenting opinion eventually endorses the action of the court but under protest.
4 Justices in two dissenting oppinions in Hamdi actually held that the detention of Hamdi was in fact illegal, and that it was not enough to simply allow him to challenge his "enemy combatant" classification. The opinion of Souter and Ginsberg was that the detention was not properly endorsed by Congress and was therefore illegal. They did not, however, challenge the plurality opinion that Habeus Corpus and due process could be observed by merely giving Hamdi a chance to present an alternative view before the judiciary.
Scalia and Stevens dissented, arguing that *any* detention without charge or trial is a violation of due process and habeus corpus rights and can only be done in the event where Congress suspends Habeus.
Only Thomas suggested that the government should be able detain Hamdi indefinitely without trial.
The decision is available at the Supreme Court's Web site here. [akamaitech.net] This link is included so that other laymen can read the opinions and reach their own conclusions.
If Hamdi is any indication of the court's responses to the question of judicial oversight in the war on terror, it seems that the 8-1 opinion is that the court *must* have strict oversight in such a way as to ensure that the Constitution and rights of the citizens are adequately protected. Of course, it could be vacated on a technicality, but this would still, I think, provide a powerful case for even individuals in other circuits. I don't at this time see the court doing anything differently.
Say what? (Score:5, Informative)
This means something (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This means something (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This means something (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This means something (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This means something (Score:5, Funny)
You wear sandals as a substitute for jeans or shorts? I really do think your office needs to tighten up its dress code a wee bit.
Re:This means something (Score:3, Funny)
You wear sandals as a substitute for jeans or shorts? I really do think your office needs to tighten up its dress code a wee bit.
Have you ever considered becoming a lawyer? If you can spot those pesky "or" "and" differences that quickly, you could make a killing.
Re:This means something (Score:5, Funny)
That is, unless it's vetoed by Diana Ross.
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:This means nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
More than just that, hope that someone else wins in November and appoints some less conservative individuals to take their seat among the other justices.
Re:This means nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
And a conservative court is one that would be more inclined to rule on the constitution, not current interpretations, in which case the Patriot act would go down pretty quickly. But as we saw with the upholding of McCain-Fiengold, which limits free speech, this court isn't our friend.
Re:This means nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think that you can actually isolate politics from this? Whoever wins in November will most likely be appointing at least one Supreme Court justice. Do you really think Bush would be picking nominees who feel that PATRIOT is unconstitutional? That would be one of those 'activist' judges....
Re:This means nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This means nothing (Score:5, Funny)
This is slashdot, call somebody a fascist or a pirate, roll around in it a while.
Re:This means nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This means nothing (Score:5, Funny)
What was I saying?
Doesn't matter, I'm going to sleeee......zzzzzzzzzzz
Re:This means nothing (Score:5, Funny)
I suggest the former - you can at least spell that one.
Re:This means nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
This judge's ruling is binding within his jurisdiction. That means it's a settled issue within that district. This will undoubtedly be appealed to an appellate court, and once it hits the appellate level, the appeals court will re-examine the conclusions of law. The conclusions of fact, though, are supreme and cannot be re-examined by any court unless they are "as offensive to the senses as a three day old mackerel". (For non-lawyers, yes, that is the legal standard used. The precedent in question is a funny read.)
Once the appellate court rules on it, the judgement is binding within the appellate court's entire jurisdiction. At this point, the law is effectively dead. Other appellate courts will refer to this first appellate court in their own decisions, and it's overwhelmingly likely all Federal circuits will come to the exact same decision.
The Supreme Court accepts less than one percent of the cases appealed to it from the appellate court level. The cases it accepts tends, overwhelmingly, to be cases which have been handled in different ways by different appellate courts (a rare occurrence), or cases which it feels to possess unusual relevance to Constitutional law.
Re:This means nothing - Thanks for the advice! (Score:5, Funny)
(Poster then continues on to educate Slashdot readers on the "real" legal facts...)
Thanks for your legal advice!
Re:This means nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, you haven't met many lawyers.
Re:This means nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't understand. Hopefully the USSC does NOT hear this case. If they refuse to hear it, the current ruling stands.
LK
you know nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Music Today, who cares ? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the Patriot act; not the DMCA.
Re:The ACLU isn't sane. (Score:4, Insightful)
You act as if the ACLU has an agenda that they are trying to disguise under the ploy of "Civil Liberties."
Oh, wait. They do.
Re:The ACLU isn't sane. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're both consistent. Keep religion out of public legislation, whether it's laws that potentially support a religion (school vouchers) or laws that run afoul of some people's religious sensibilities (abortion.)
Re:The ACLU isn't sane. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that I'm reading your post right...perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your logic. Could you elaborate on how this is an inconsistency?
It seems to me that the ACLU is saying something like "we oppose laws based on someone's dogmatic morality". They're also appear to take on a position along the lines of "we oppose government funding of religious education". To me, their message seems pretty
Re:The ACLU isn't sane. (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and that's a recent change. I'll take their shakey stance on gun control and vouchers and a few other topics because I'm willing to trade my way out of having traded my way out liberty fo
Re:The ACLU isn't sane. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say if those who have moral reasons are also democrats (!), then they can abide by the democratic results.
As for those who have religious reasons -- what concern is that of the state? The USA is not a country that can inflict sharia, or any other religiously motivated laws, on its people.
Where's you from, bud?
Re:Common Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this is a good explanation of why PATRIOT act is bad. I reject is because it violates the Popperian criterion of good law (not to be mistaken by the more famous Popperian criterion [wikipedia.org] of what is and what isn't scientific). Popper said that it is reasonable to assume that sooner or later some rotten scoundrels will gain power. It's not important who they will be precisely, but whatever your politcal views might be you must agree that a likelihood of such event is rather high. So whatever law you want to have in you country, don't ask yourself the question "how this law can be used in good hands". Ask the question "how this law can be used when the filthiest, dirtest, stupidest bastards will rule my country (and sooner or later they probably will)". Only the law that cannot be used to anything wrong EVEN by the most vicious ruler is truly good. Now, PATRIOT act could maybe be a good idea in the hands of pure angels. Even if you think Bush and Cheney are as good as angels, you can't seriously think they will rule forever, can you? And just imagine what a malevolent ruler can do with this act...