Judge strikes down part of Patriot Act

[almaty 19]

NEW YORK - A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court's approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."

The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law, complaining that it allowed the FBI to demand records without the kind of court order required for other government searches.

The ACLU said it was improper to issue so-called national security letters, or NSLs — investigative tools used by the FBI to compel businesses to turn over customer information — without a judge's order or grand jury subpoena. Examples of such businesses include Internet service providers, telephone companies and public libraries.

Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office, said prosecutors had no immediate comment.

Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the revised law had wrongly given the FBI sweeping authority to control speech because the agency was allowed to decide on its own — without court review — whether a company receiving an NSL had to remain silent or whether it could reveal to its customers that it was turning over records.

In 2004, ruling on the initial version of the Patriot Act, the judge said the letters violate the Constitution because they amounted to unreasonable search and seizure. He found that the nondisclosure requirement — under which an Internet service provider, for instance, would not be allowed to tell customers that it was turning over their records to the government — violated free speech.

After he ruled, Congress revised the Patriot Act in 2005, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directed that Marrero review the law's constitutionality a second time.

The ACLU complained that Congress' revision of the law didn't go far enough to protect people because the government could still order companies to turn over their records and remain silent about it, if the FBI determined that the case involved national security.

The law was written "reflects an attempt by Congress and the executive to infringe upon the judiciary's designated role under the Constitution," Marrero wrote.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Thank God for that judge.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

It's about time! Personally the "Patriot Act" is unconstitutional and a violation to our civil liberties.

Where is the Edward R. Murrow of our time to challange these things our government officals are doing?

Rupert Murdoch is like Davey Jones in "Pirates of the Carrabien" who can call on the "Cracken" that 60 foot squid that to me is like all the M-E-D-I-A Murdoch owns with it's far reaching tenticals of chaos and persuassion.

[TracyTN 237]

Yeah, and idiot banks (*cough* Amsouth/Regions *cough*) LOVE to cite it as a reason for requiring identification up the ying yang for legally admitted aliens...!

[Heracles 417]

ACLU and being unconstitutional are just about the two dumbest things I have ever heard of. Maybe if we are attacked I can use the US court system against the terrorists. Apparently the judges double up as special forces. I am also sure the ACLU and it's heroic members will take up arms and fight for this nation, not!!

PS Before anyone thinks that this whole war on terror is made up by the GWB admin and war mongers, keep in mind one thing; Humans have been at war 97% of our history..

Edited September 6, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[pedroh 21]

good.. looks like someone cares about our civil liberties

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ACLU and being unconstitutional are just about the two dumbest things I have ever heard of. Maybe if we are attacked I can use the US court system against the terrorists. Apparently the judges double up as special forces. I am also sure the ACLU and it's heroic members will take up arms and fight for this nation, not!!

PS Before anyone thinks that this whole war on terror is made up by the GWB admin and war mongers, keep in mind one thing; Humans have been at war 97% of our history..

Should we tear up the constitution then?

[Heracles 417]

So let me get this straight. They cannot tap calls or search and seize property. Maybe someone can enlighten me then on exactly how the authorities are supposed to prevent terror attacks.

[Caladan 19]

Good. This law was ridiculous. We can tap your phones, if you ask if we're tapping them we're not allowed to tell you, and we don't need any judicial oversight. Sorry. Chase all the terrorists you want but that's what check and balances are FOR.

This should be something on which both conservatives and liberals agree.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

So let me get this straight. They cannot tap calls or search and seize property. Maybe someone can enlighten me then on exactly how the authorities are supposed to prevent terror attacks.

sounds like status quo antebellum to me.

[Caladan 19]

So let me get this straight. They cannot tap calls or search and seize property. Maybe someone can enlighten me then on exactly how the authorities are supposed to prevent terror attacks.

They can tap phones. They just need to get temporary warrant first. As I understand that procedure, it's pretty easy, and a judge just rubber stamps it. It doesn't slow them down any, but it makes sure there's a paper trail.

If they said cheeseburgers helped the terrorists win we'd see demonstrations against cheddar.

[Heracles 417]

ACLU and being unconstitutional are just about the two dumbest things I have ever heard of. Maybe if we are attacked I can use the US court system against the terrorists. Apparently the judges double up as special forces. I am also sure the ACLU and it's heroic members will take up arms and fight for this nation, not!!

PS Before anyone thinks that this whole war on terror is made up by the GWB admin and war mongers, keep in mind one thing; Humans have been at war 97% of our history..

Should we tear up the constitution then?

No but clearly lynch mobs like the ACLU are more interested in their own agenda than protecting lives or the citizens of this country. Hence why the do all of their dirty work behind the closed doors of the courts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So let me get this straight. They cannot tap calls or search and seize property. Maybe someone can enlighten me then on exactly how the authorities are supposed to prevent terror attacks.

Well the assumption here is that the government will use its powers for the good. That may well be the case, but given that we've had Watergate and similar scandals in the past - which have involved the abuse of power by our elected representatives, it would seem foolish to do away with our civil protections.

[Heracles 417]

So let me get this straight. They cannot tap calls or search and seize property. Maybe someone can enlighten me then on exactly how the authorities are supposed to prevent terror attacks.

They can tap phones. They just need to get temporary warrant first. As I understand that procedure, it's pretty easy, and a judge just rubber stamps it. It doesn't slow them down any, but it makes sure there's a paper trail.

So if they want to tap 100,000 plus phone lines you are recommending they spend the next 20 years taking each case to a judge; to get permission.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ACLU and being unconstitutional are just about the two dumbest things I have ever heard of. Maybe if we are attacked I can use the US court system against the terrorists. Apparently the judges double up as special forces. I am also sure the ACLU and it's heroic members will take up arms and fight for this nation, not!!

PS Before anyone thinks that this whole war on terror is made up by the GWB admin and war mongers, keep in mind one thing; Humans have been at war 97% of our history..

Should we tear up the constitution then?

No but clearly lynch mobs like the ACLU are more interested in their own agenda than protecting lives or the citizens of this country. Hence why the do all of their dirty work behind the closed doors of the courts.

All they have to do to tap phones is get a warrant from a court - most of the time it is approved*. Its hardly a draconian policy - just ensures that there's a process of review. Take that away and you're taking it on trust that it won't be abused.

* This is what has historically been done to investigate regular criminals, including members of the mafia.