Sparrowhawk
09-30-04, 08:20 AM
Marine Mom posted a disturbing news story here today regarding the Patriot Act, a key part which was Ruled Unconstitutional.
Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=91738#post91738)
The law basically declares that personal security is as important as national security, a judge blocked the government from conducting secret, unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records as part of its fight against terrorism.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down a provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI (news - web sites) to force Internet service providers and phone companies to turn over certain customer records. The companies are then barred from ever disclosing the search took place.
In his ruling, the judge called national security of "paramount value" and said the government "must be empowered to respond promptly and effectively" to threats. But he called personal security equal in importance and "especially prized in our system of justice."
Marrero said his ruling blocks the government from issuing the requests or from enforcing the non-disclosure provision "in this or any other case." But the ruling will not immediately take effect to allow for an appeal.
The judge said the law violates the Fourth Amendment because it bars or deters any judicial challenge to the government searches, and violates the First Amendment because its permanent ban on disclosure is a prior restraint on speech.
He noted that the Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
"Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good," Marrero wrote.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of an unidentified Internet provider which the judge identified only as "JOhn Doe," in his 120-page ruling. The judge agreed to keep the firm's identity secret to protect the FBI probe that led to the search request.
Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer, said the government had turned over as part of the lawsuit a six-page document showing it had obtained Internet or telephone records dozens and possibly hundreds of times.
<hr>
While I cherish my freedom, and don't really care who reads my emails, or knows which web sites I visit, nothing in them of national importance, except perhaps when I called Teresa Kerry a, a, a _______, well I better not say that anymore because the law doesn't go into effect right away as it will be appealed.
But for some reason this ruling does not make me free safer.
Who did the ACLU file the law suit on behalf?
Who was the service provider that did not want to comply?
That information should be made known but the public is not informed about it, so the very open society the judge rules for, he keeps blinds for the same security reasons..
The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by legislation passed after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.
In a footnote to his ruling, Marrero cited words he had written two years ago in another case to warn that courts must apply "particular vigilance to safeguard against excess committed in the name of expediency."
This "excess however is not showed to have been violated."
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS RULING?
Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=91738#post91738)
The law basically declares that personal security is as important as national security, a judge blocked the government from conducting secret, unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records as part of its fight against terrorism.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down a provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI (news - web sites) to force Internet service providers and phone companies to turn over certain customer records. The companies are then barred from ever disclosing the search took place.
In his ruling, the judge called national security of "paramount value" and said the government "must be empowered to respond promptly and effectively" to threats. But he called personal security equal in importance and "especially prized in our system of justice."
Marrero said his ruling blocks the government from issuing the requests or from enforcing the non-disclosure provision "in this or any other case." But the ruling will not immediately take effect to allow for an appeal.
The judge said the law violates the Fourth Amendment because it bars or deters any judicial challenge to the government searches, and violates the First Amendment because its permanent ban on disclosure is a prior restraint on speech.
He noted that the Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
"Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good," Marrero wrote.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of an unidentified Internet provider which the judge identified only as "JOhn Doe," in his 120-page ruling. The judge agreed to keep the firm's identity secret to protect the FBI probe that led to the search request.
Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer, said the government had turned over as part of the lawsuit a six-page document showing it had obtained Internet or telephone records dozens and possibly hundreds of times.
<hr>
While I cherish my freedom, and don't really care who reads my emails, or knows which web sites I visit, nothing in them of national importance, except perhaps when I called Teresa Kerry a, a, a _______, well I better not say that anymore because the law doesn't go into effect right away as it will be appealed.
But for some reason this ruling does not make me free safer.
Who did the ACLU file the law suit on behalf?
Who was the service provider that did not want to comply?
That information should be made known but the public is not informed about it, so the very open society the judge rules for, he keeps blinds for the same security reasons..
The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by legislation passed after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.
In a footnote to his ruling, Marrero cited words he had written two years ago in another case to warn that courts must apply "particular vigilance to safeguard against excess committed in the name of expediency."
This "excess however is not showed to have been violated."
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS RULING?