The house of cards starts tumbling down.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070906/pl_nm/...ty_fbi_gag_dc_4 A provision of the Patriot Act that requires people who are formally contacted by the FBI for information to keep it a secret is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero sided with the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit and argued that an FBI letter requesting information -- called a National Security Letter -- is effectively a gag order but without the authorization of a judge. The FBI tells people who receive the letters to keep them secret, but recipients can challenge the secrecy order in court under a 2006 congressional amendment to the NSL law. The law says judges must defer to the FBI's view that secrecy is necessary, undermining the judiciary's check on the power of the executive branch, the ACLU said. In a written ruling issued on Thursday, Marrero said the gag order violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and was unconstitutional.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 6 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]508126[/snapback]</div> I never did follow through on creating a bumper sticker (a little late for it now): "Commit a Patriot Act: Arrest Ashcroft" --- although there's still timeliness in it this way: "Commit a Patriot Act: Arrest Cheney/Bush" or the less satisfying but perhaps somewhat more plausible: "Commit a Patriot Act: Impeach Cheney/Bush" Hmmm - time to start checking out the local printers ----- MB
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 6 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]508126[/snapback]</div> I'm with you Doc. I've had about all I can take. Here, here!
"Patriot Act". Just a naming convention for the weak minded, to prevent resistance to the erosion of our rights. "The ACLU says more than 143,000 NSLs were issued between 2003 and 2005". Hmmm... We have THAT many terrorists among us? Or.... ?????? Think of privacy this way -- do you really want whatever power you DON'T represent to control ALL information and everyone?? Just because your particular group may be in power now doesn't mean they always will be! There are checks and balances for a reason. Wake up, people! This is not rocket science.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. We should all be so lucky to have so many God-given and undeniable rights to be stripped away from us by an over-powerful Theocrical government. Do you honestly not realize that there are people in other countries who don't even have these basic human rights to be taken away at the whim of a federal government or individual? Right now, there are people in dictatorships who would gladly sacrifice such rights if only they had them in the first place. After all, just what is the purpose of rights and liberties, checks and balances if not to have them stripped away, overruled and bypassed?
Well said Tony. I'm sick of these bed-wetting crybabies complaining about losing rights they were hardly using at all in the first place.
When you get right down to it, i can easily understand the authorities requesting you keep something quiet during an ongoing investigation. It can be rather difficult to continue an investigation if the target is tipped off and flees the country. That being said, it most definitely IS unconstitutional to word an act or law in a way that removes any possibility of judicial overview. Back in my government class in high school, the concept of checks and balances was hammered into our heads as possibly the most important part of the constitution. It's what is supposed to protect the people from the abuse of power by the other branches.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 7 2007, 09:22 AM) [snapback]508495[/snapback]</div> What good are rights if they are only afforded to some of the people and not all of them? Bush pardoned Scooter Libby, but left the 2 border Patrol agents in jail to rot. Is that equal and fair?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 6 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]508126[/snapback]</div> A little premature i see - this will obviously be appealed to a higher court. you can always find a lunatic judge somewhere down the line. I am still curious as to one right or liberty you have lost as a US citizen since the Patriot Act was established by both parties?
You may still be curious, but that's been asked and answered innumerable times...you've simply chosen to discount those replies as you choose to see them as irrelevant. Much like many things in the patriot act choosing to make portions of the constitution irrelevant for the sake of convenience. We all acknowledge that the intent of the PA was good...to protect us from the bad guys, facilitate rapid movement of homeland security and law enforcement, etc. The problem is to do that it skirted or flat out violates the intent of the constitution. Lunatic judge=any judge who doesn't see the world through the same rose colored glasses you do?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 7 2007, 03:29 PM) [snapback]508696[/snapback]</div> not discounting anything - i cannot recall you naming ONE right or liberty you lost with the enactment of the Patriot Act. Rose colored glasses - perhaps Cabernet colored glasses in a few hours... have a nice weekend, hope you are not working it. david
Gee Berman, how about we go with the first amendment, or our right to free speech, which was violated as is said in the article posted. Or how about unreasonable search and seizures, which was violated with the warrant less wiretaps. Take your pick, those are just two off the top of my head. PS. I have no proof that i was a victim of any of these, partly because the checks and balances were disrupted by cutting the judicial branch out of the picture.
One of the things I'm sort of looking forward to is hearing the rantings and ravings from republicans when their little patriot act's gun barrel is turned towards them by President Hillary Clinton. It's probably already keeping a few of them up nights.
