The Great PATRIOT Act Challenge - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Great PATRIOT Act Challenge (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/21/2004 9:57:32 AM EDT

[#1]

"In an extraordinary sealed case, the American Civil Liberties Union has challenged the FBI’s unchecked authority to issue “National Security Letters” (NSLs), which demand sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could use the NSL authority only against suspected terrorists and spies. Thanks to Section 505 of the Patriot Act, the FBI can now use NSLs to obtain information about anyone at all.

The ACLU’s legal papers argue that the NSL statute violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it does not impose adequate safeguards on the FBI’s authority to force disclosure of sensitive and constitutionally protected information.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit under seal to avoid penalties for violating the NSL statute’s broad gag provision, a provision that the ACLU is challenging on First Amendment grounds. Similar gag provisions are attached to other controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, including Section 215, which the ACLU has challenged in another lawsuit.

While the challenge to the NSL provision was filed on April 6, it took nearly three weeks for the ACLU to reach an agreement with the government that allowed the disclosure of anything at all about the case. A redacted version of the complaint is now publicly available, but many details about the case are still under seal. The ACLU believes that the public has a right to more information about the government’s use of the Patriot Act and is committed to unsealing more information about the case as quickly as possible."

Secret laws are inheriently wrong. You cannot be in violation of a law if you have no way of knowing the law.

Posted: 9/21/2004 10:06:44 AM EDT

[#2]

Freetotravel.org

Apply secret laws to everyone here's favorite hobby and tell me if the government would be right then. I don't understand conservatives not trusting Bill Clinton and Democrats, but saying the president needs these powers now because we're at war against terrorism, and not think that these powers will be used against them when a Democrat is back in power.
I also don't understand how people can think that we are at a war against "Terrorism" and how this is anymore likely to be won than the War on Drugs or War on Poverty.
Terrorism is bad, we should try to stomp it out at every chance. But I'm not for giving ANY government more powers and abridging any of my rights for an indefiante amount of time.

Posted: 9/21/2004 10:17:45 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
It's interesting but a little contrived.

So any legal analysis by a third party is verboten, only first hand study of all the existing US code and then first hand placing of the "strike XXXXX insert YYYYY" in the details and then contrasting that with text of the constitution is acceptable evidence? Yes, I'm sure you'll succeed in shooting many people down by challenging the way they come by the information or who the info comes from. It's doubtful many people understand all the relevant US code by which the FBI and Justice Department run. So it's equally unlikely that they will by themselves be able to accomplish what you are asking for. If we have some folks who's job involves constitutional law they may have more insight. I'd be highly interested in hearing from them.

I'm not on the PATRIOT act is pure evil bandwagon either. However, based on some accounts I have read I have my concerns (no I'm not digging out lexus/nexus to provide the cites). My main concern came from stories of enhanced penalties from the act being applied to domestic crime. If those are really valid concerns only time will tell. I doubt this thread will too instructive in the debate.

How do you know whether the trird party criticism is true?
Much of it is pure ignorance.
The Patriot Act in one window, the US Code in another.
Take an hour, and try it.
If the Patriot Act is all that has been claimed, is it not worth the effort?

Posted: 9/21/2004 10:29:07 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Great way to refute their arguments, ad hominem attacks

Get out the dictionary sir; "ad homonym attacks" refer to the usage of IRREVALENCIES to attack, in this case, an author. If I had dismissed their thesis on the basis of, let's say, they had green eyes then yes, my comments would fall under the category of "ad homonym attack". Instead, I pointed out that the authors in question have a TRACK RECORD of writing from a purely political, leftist and anti-Bush point of reference and thus their "guide" is as tainted as a CBS news report. Now I have no problem with people writing from any political bent, In fact I go out of my way to seek out left leaning authors, I just don't look to them for legal analysis. We have the 9th Circuit for that.

Posted: 9/21/2004 10:30:08 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Freetotravel.org

Apply secret laws to everyone here's favorite hobby and tell me if the government would be right then. I don't understand conservatives not trusting Bill Clinton and Democrats, but saying the president needs these powers now because we're at war against terrorism, and not think that these powers will be used against them when a Democrat is back in power.
I also don't understand how people can think that we are at a war against "Terrorism" and how this is anymore likely to be won than the War on Drugs or War on Poverty.
Terrorism is bad, we should try to stomp it out at every chance. But I'm not for giving ANY government more powers and abridging any of my rights for an indefiante amount of time.

Wow, a website that does not even mention the Patriot Act used as evidence that it is bad.

Posted: 9/21/2004 10:33:23 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Freetotravel.org

Apply secret laws to everyone here's favorite hobby and tell me if the government would be right then. I don't understand conservatives not trusting Bill Clinton and Democrats, but saying the president needs these powers now because we're at war against terrorism, and not think that these powers will be used against them when a Democrat is back in power.
I also don't understand how people can think that we are at a war against "Terrorism" and how this is anymore likely to be won than the War on Drugs or War on Poverty.
Terrorism is bad, we should try to stomp it out at every chance. But I'm not for giving ANY government more powers and abridging any of my rights for an indefiante amount of time.

Wow, a website that does not even mention the Patriot Act used as evidence that it is bad.

SORRY I just meant to point to the government encroaching on freedom. But your right roll your eyes this administration can do no wrong. I mean we're fighting against TERROR (oh the humanity)

Posted: 9/21/2004 10:37:58 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freetotravel.org

Apply secret laws to everyone here's favorite hobby and tell me if the government would be right then. I don't understand conservatives not trusting Bill Clinton and Democrats, but saying the president needs these powers now because we're at war against terrorism, and not think that these powers will be used against them when a Democrat is back in power.
I also don't understand how people can think that we are at a war against "Terrorism" and how this is anymore likely to be won than the War on Drugs or War on Poverty.
Terrorism is bad, we should try to stomp it out at every chance. But I'm not for giving ANY government more powers and abridging any of my rights for an indefiante amount of time.

Wow, a website that does not even mention the Patriot Act used as evidence that it is bad.

SORRY I just meant to point to the government encroaching on freedom. But your right roll your eyes this administration can do no wrong. I mean we're fighting against TERROR (oh the humanity)

Please show us HOW THE PATRIOT ACT IS ENCROACHING ON FREEDOM???? Just claiming it does not make it so. Please site specifics.

Posted: 9/21/2004 10:38:49 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's interesting but a little contrived.

So any legal analysis by a third party is verboten, only first hand study of all the existing US code and then first hand placing of the "strike XXXXX insert YYYYY" in the details and then contrasting that with text of the constitution is acceptable evidence? Yes, I'm sure you'll succeed in shooting many people down by challenging the way they come by the information or who the info comes from. It's doubtful many people understand all the relevant US code by which the FBI and Justice Department run. So it's equally unlikely that they will by themselves be able to accomplish what you are asking for. If we have some folks who's job involves constitutional law they may have more insight. I'd be highly interested in hearing from them.

I'm not on the PATRIOT act is pure evil bandwagon either. However, based on some accounts I have read I have my concerns (no I'm not digging out lexus/nexus to provide the cites). My main concern came from stories of enhanced penalties from the act being applied to domestic crime. If those are really valid concerns only time will tell. I doubt this thread will too instructive in the debate.

No one said you cannot use second hand sources. What we are asking is that you check the claims of these sources AGAINST THE ACTUAL LAW! In all the panic stricken "evidence" cited, a simple look at the law reveals these dangers to be at best greatly exagerated, at worst outright fabrications. That is whiy Dave_A asked for people to back up their assertions with EVIDENCE. The main source of evidence on the unconstitutionality of the law would be to show where the text of the law conflicts with the Constitution. So far, not a SINGLE example has been raise.

While my current "job" does not involve constitutional law, it is what I did my Doctoral studies in. I have read the Patriot Act, every word of it, several times. There are simply no violations of the Constitution, unless you wish to overturn the past century of constitutional jurisprudence and start over from scratch on what defines "unreasonable" search and seizure, how we define "persons, houses, papers, and effects" and what constitutes "probable cause," "due process," and "equal protection."

In gereral I agree with you. Not because I love the PATRIOT act or RICO laws in general, but because so little is really protected these days by the bill of rights. Under todays body of law the provisions that I'm familiar with in the act probably would not be struck down. So what? Look at our 2A rights. The language is clear, yet court after court has chipped it down to less a right than a privilage granted under condition / whim of the state. That's probably not what was intended.

My objections to the act really are not based on constitutional grounds. There are things that the document doesn't bar that are still not desirable. The things that concern me are the power that comes with the act. For instance that the AG decides what is a terrorist group. Are we really so blind as to not see that can be turned on anyone? Move public opionion of a group for a while and then declare them terrorists and boom, death penalty cases, forfiture, and spying become easier.

You think Clinton's AG would not have loved to have this to work with against 'right wing militias'?I know you want cites of abuse and if I can find something good I'll post it. What has always irritated me in the debate though is the dismissal of those who simply are not comfortable with giving the fed greater power. I tend to think that way, and I don't think a law has to be unconstitutional to be a bad idea.

I'll admit my specialty is not law, so I'm not going to try to argue you down. I have a feeling you probably know more than I. This is just my take on it from a laymans perspective.

Posted: 9/21/2004 11:14:45 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Overturning the last century of constitutional jurisprudence sounds like a good start to me.

me too.

Really, now. The last century of constitutional jurisprudence brought us most of the civil liberties we now enjoy.

If you have even the slightest grasp of legal history in this country, you would understand that most of the protections enumerated in the Bill Of Rights were not available and/or enforced to most Americans until well into the 20th century.

Most courts only applied the BOR to federal cases until the 14th Amendment was enforced.

Local Law Enforcement regularly made arrests and searched places without warrants.

Confessions were regularly coerced from people by authorities.

People were tried and convicted without juries, or with tainted juries, and without legal representation.

There was little or no oversight over Law Enforcement or the courts; judicial abuses were commonplace, and there was no real penalty for excessive use of force by agents of the state, and no real remedy to redress grievances.

Speech was regularly suppressed, papers censored and "moral" standards, indecency laws, "blue" laws and sedition laws regularly used to suppress speech, artistic expression, commerce and minority groups.

The last century's worth of judicial progress is mainly responsible for all of these reforms. People whine about how the country isn't free anymore, when many of the things we regularly do these days would have gotten you locked up in prison in 19th or even mid-20th century America. I got this much out of basic case law review for cops. The things theat Law Enforcement USED to do in this country, 20-40 years ago would make you cringe. The activist courts, while they have definitely exceeded their mandates at times, were responsible for applying case law that forced the judicial system, local governement and state and local LE to abide by the US Constitution as well, something that they did not do until fairly recent times.

Damn. You folks have me sounding like some kind of left-winger.

Posted: 9/21/2004 12:06:43 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Get out the dictionary sir; "ad homonym attacks" refer to the usage of IRREVALENCIES to attack, in this case, an author. If I had dismissed their thesis on the basis of, let's say, they had green eyes then yes, my comments would fall under the category of "ad homonym attack". Instead, I pointed out that the authors in question have a TRACK RECORD of writing from a purely political, leftist and anti-Bush point of reference and thus their "guide" is as tainted as a CBS news report. Now I have no problem with people writing from any political bent, In fact I go out of my way to seek out left leaning authors, I just don't look to them for legal analysis. We have the 9th Circuit for that.

Not quite
"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way."

Posted: 9/21/2004 12:25:40 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Not quite

Wikipedia? Cool.

Quoted:
The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way."

It doesn't make it any less credible? Ok, if you say so. I'm glad juries are given different instructions when they deliberate............or is that unconstitutional as well?

Posted: 9/21/2004 12:28:01 PM EDT

[#12]

you have yet to offer any evidence contrary to what they said.

Posted: 9/21/2004 12:40:31 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
you have yet to offer any evidence contrary to what they said.

Contrary to what?!?

I read 2 parts of that "guide" and I didn't see one citation of where the PA was actually used in a way that violated Constitutional Protections. The whole thing is nothing more than a collection of "What ifs" and "just likes".

The law is full of shades of gray. Thats how it was designed and thats why it works. You only want to deal in absolutes and they don't exist nor have they ever.

Posted: 9/21/2004 2:10:34 PM EDT

[#14]

From The Cato Institute always known to be left wing
[qoute]
One of the most odious provisions of the Patriot Act is known as Section 215.

That provision empowers FBI agents to demand things from people in terrorism-related investigations.

Ashcroft and conservative analysts claim that the Patriot Act operates in a similar fashion to ordinary search warrants so there is nothing to worry about. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, for example, says, "The FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court."

In truth, the act creates a façade of judicial review. Here is the pertinent language: "Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter" the order.

That was crafty. Instead of enacting a law that says whenever an FBI agent wants to demand something from someone, he can do so as long as he is following leads in a terrorism investigation, the Patriot Act accomplishes the same end indirectly. The FBI can now use boilerplate forms and submit them to federal magistrates, who "shall" approve the applications.

The judicial check is not there. The judiciary cannot scrutinize the foundation for the Justice Department applications.

Posted: 9/21/2004 2:16:18 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

From The Cato Institute always known to be left wing
[qoute]
One of the most odious provisions of the Patriot Act is known as Section 215.

That provision empowers FBI agents to demand things from people in terrorism-related investigations.

Ashcroft and conservative analysts claim that the Patriot Act operates in a similar fashion to ordinary search warrants so there is nothing to worry about. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, for example, says, "The FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court."

In truth, the act creates a façade of judicial review. Here is the pertinent language: "Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter" the order.

Oh really?
Is that what it says?

That was crafty. Instead of enacting a law that says whenever an FBI agent wants to demand something from someone, he can do so as long as he is following leads in a terrorism investigation, the Patriot Act accomplishes the same end indirectly. The FBI can now use boilerplate forms and submit them to federal magistrates, who "shall" approve the applications.

The judicial check is not there. The judiciary cannot scrutinize the foundation for the Justice Department applications.

Prove it, here's the Act itself...

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

Let's see, you claim it says...

'"Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter" the order...'

But it really says...

"(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section. "

See how they lie to you?
Why do they do it?
It's simple, they wish to manipulate you.
Now why can't you just do like I did, and look it up yourself?

Posted: 9/22/2004 4:40:59 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Now why can't you just do like I did, and look it up yourself?

[bushhatinglibertarian]Because if I did that I wouldn't be able to complain about Bush and Republicans[/bushhatinglibertarian]

Posted: 9/27/2004 7:42:07 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
i dont know the words of the act, but since it has been used to deny people the right to an atourny, or a speedy public trial. doesnt that break the law? i dont really feal like getting the text of the act.. but gidion vs wainwrite, the 5th, 6th, and 9th amendment, back that up.

if the patriot act is constitutional, then they wouldnt be able to do the stuff that i've heard about. even if they are called a traiter, that's still illegal.

That was done by executive order, separate from the PATIROT Act.

Nothing in PATRIOT authorizes this.

The 2 individuals who have any claim against being held in this manner under the Constitution are being held as Enemy Combatinants, which is closer to POW status than criminal defendant status.

This was done using the power of Commander in Cheif (they are held on military installations) and constitutionality has yet to be determined, although I personally don't like it, this has nothing to do with PATRIOT.

Posted: 9/27/2004 7:46:57 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Does this meet your standard Dave?

From slate

What it does: Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or judicial oversight.

The law before and how it changed: Before Patriot, these letters could only be issued against individuals who were reasonably suspected of espionage. But Patriot loosened the standard by allowing the letters to be used against anyone, including U.S. citizens, even if they themselves are not suspected of espionage or criminal activity. These letters may now be issued independently by FBI field offices, rather than by senior officials. And unlike Section 215 warrants, they are not subject to even perfunctory judicial review or oversight.

The records that can be obtained through the letters under Patriot include telephone logs, e-mail logs, certain financial and bank records, and credit reports, on the assertion that such information would be "relevant" to an ongoing terrorism investigation. They cannot be used in ordinary criminal investigations. Unlike 215, no court order—not even a rubber-stamped order—is required. Those forced to turn over records are gagged from disclosing the demand.

No, and Slate is off their rocker a bit here...

Administrative Subpoenas are very common, even in state level cases...

When criminal investigators (usually the DA's office) want a piece of evidence that is not the property of a suspect (hence no 4th or 5th Ammendment connection), but rather a 3rd party, they get a subpoena for the information.

Examples include bank records, purchase histories, and similar items that are the property of the COMPANY THAT HOLDS THEM, not the person who's activities created them.

Since they're not 'your person, papers, or premises' (if they were, a search/siezure warrant would suffice) you have no Constitutional protection from others obtaining them.

Posted: 9/27/2004 7:50:51 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
"In an extraordinary sealed case, the American Civil Liberties Union has challenged the FBI’s unchecked authority to issue “National Security Letters” (NSLs), which demand sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could use the NSL authority only against suspected terrorists and spies. Thanks to Section 505 of the Patriot Act, the FBI can now use NSLs to obtain information about anyone at all.

The ACLU’s legal papers argue that the NSL statute violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it does not impose adequate safeguards on the FBI’s authority to force disclosure of sensitive and constitutionally protected information.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit under seal to avoid penalties for violating the NSL statute’s broad gag provision, a provision that the ACLU is challenging on First Amendment grounds. Similar gag provisions are attached to other controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, including Section 215, which the ACLU has challenged in another lawsuit.

While the challenge to the NSL provision was filed on April 6, it took nearly three weeks for the ACLU to reach an agreement with the government that allowed the disclosure of anything at all about the case. A redacted version of the complaint is now publicly available, but many details about the case are still under seal. The ACLU believes that the public has a right to more information about the government’s use of the Patriot Act and is committed to unsealing more information about the case as quickly as possible."

Secret laws are inheriently wrong. You cannot be in violation of a law if you have no way of knowing the law.

You can't violate this part of the law except for by refusing a subpoena for information about someone else that is YOUR property (All 'customer data' belongs to the company that collected it).

That's contempt of court, and it's hardly a new concept...

It's no different than telling the cops to 'stuff it' when they come asking you for records that are evidence in a common murder case...

Posted: 9/28/2004 7:41:13 AM EDT

[#20]

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional simply because there is no provision in the Constitution for a national police force. That said, I believe the FBI, DEA, ATF, TSA, etc are all unconstitutional agencies.

Posted: 9/28/2004 7:28:04 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
The Patriot Act is unconstitutional simply because there is no provision in the Constitution for a national police force. That said, I believe the FBI, DEA, ATF, TSA, etc are all unconstitutional agencies.

The General Welfare & Common Defense clauses permit PATRIOT style actions, which are really intelegence/counter-intelegence (we're after foreign agents here) operations...

It can also be argued that 'providing for the general welfare' & 'common defense' authorize federel LE agencies to enforce what limited levels of federal law are possible under the Constitution.

This was allready covered before...

NEXT!

Posted: 9/28/2004 7:35:20 PM EDT

[#22]

This really is an informative thread.
Thanks to all the participants so far.

Keep 'em coming.

Posted: 9/28/2004 7:45:39 PM EDT

[#23]

What is the definition of a terrorist, and who makes that definition?

Posted: 9/28/2004 7:58:32 PM EDT

[#24]

Would it be the same people who coined the term "automatic weapon ban"?

Posted: 9/28/2004 8:47:57 PM EDT

[#25]

Ok, I used automatic weapon ban as bait, and it didn't work, but, you can not tell me that the powers that be will not change the word "terrorist" to mean anything they want.

Good night.

Posted: 9/28/2004 9:00:54 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Ok, I used automatic weapon ban as bait, and it didn't work, but, you can not tell me that the powers that be will not change the word "terrorist" to mean anything they want.

Good night.

IRRELEVANT

Please confine your responses to CONSTITUTIONALITY of the law as written, with citations and evidence.

Posted: 9/28/2004 9:52:50 PM EDT

[#27]

Dave,

Whether a law is Constitutional does not automatically make it "good" or "right". There are Constitutionally-permitted laws that I don't like. Prosecutorial immunity & eminent domain (both horribly abused) are examples. As I posted prior: The gov't screwed up, at all levels, & now it wants more power & a bigger budget, courtesy of - once again - the U.S. taxpayer.

"Office of Homlaned Security"? What the hell? What sort of added "security" does another new fed. agency do that the previous numbers of fed. agencies could not? I don't see a need for more laws, or agencies. I do see a need for wiping the bureaucratic crap from 'Ol Uncle Sam's ass, getting off the shitter, & getting down to the business of enforcing the already-plentiful laws we've had on the books. This is a war. We didn't have problems w/ handling foreign insurgency attempts during WW2. Why area we all the sudden powerless today? The job simply isn't getting done. Not for want of ability, but rather, a lack of will & conviction. PCness is the problem. The FBI was alerted of the flight students' activities by their own flight instructors, but FBI HQ told the Miami field office to sit on its hands. Don't want to make waves. PCness wins...we lose. Once again.

Now, after failing, the gov't says it needs more laws, & more $$$ for, among other things, a "Dept. of Homland Security", which it swears will be able to do what the FBI & CIA were supposed to do, & but did not. I'm not interested in giving more of anything to a gov't that fails to perform its expected duties. The fed. should work w/ what it has - which is plenty already. I concur w/ SteyrAug - this encroaches into dangerous territory, irregardless of any Constitutional allowance.

No more laws. No more agencies. No more money. The job could, & should, have been done correctly. There are no justifiable excuses for this failure. None.

Posted: 9/28/2004 9:58:42 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Dave,

Whether a law is Constitutional does not automatically make it "good" or "right". There are Constitutionally-permitted laws that I don't like. Prosecutorial immunity & eminent domain (both horribly abused) are examples. As I posted prior: The gov't screwed up, at all levels, & now it wants more power & a bigger budget, courtesy of - once again - the U.S. taxpayer.

"Office of Homlaned Security"? What the hell? What sort of added "security" does another new fed. agency do that the previous numbers of fed. agencies could not? I don't see a need for more laws, or agencies. I do see a need for wiping the bureaucratic crap from 'Ol Uncle Sam's ass, getting off the shitter, & getting down to the business of enforcing the already-plentiful laws we've had on the books. This is a war. We didn't have problems w/ handling foreign insurgency attempts during WW2. Why area we all the sudden powerless today? The job simply isn't getting done. Not for want of ability, but rather, a lack of will & conviction. PCness is the problem. The FBI was alerted of the flight students' activities by their own flight instructors, but FBI HQ told the Miami field office to sit on its hands. Don't want to make waves. PCness wins...we lose. Once again.

Now, after failing, the gov't says it needs more laws, & more $$$ for, among other things, a "Dept. of Homland Security", which it swears will be able to do what the FBI & CIA were supposed to do, & but did not. I'm not interested in giving more of anything to a gov't that fails to perform its expected duties. The fed. should work w/ what it has - which is plenty already. I concur w/ SteyrAug - this encroaches into dangerous territory, irregardless of any Constitutional allowance.

No more laws. No more agencies. No more money. The job could, & should, have been done correctly. There are no justifiable excuses for this failure. None.

Irrelevant to the purpose of this thread.

This is exactly what I requested NOT be discussed...

THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD WAS TO DEAL WITH THE ALLEGATION THAT THE USAPA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS RAISED BY THE DEMS, ACLU, AND A FEW HERE AS WELL. NOT TO DEAL WITH WEATHER OR NOT THE LAW IS 'GOOD' OR 'BAD'.

Posted: 9/29/2004 4:13:42 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Ok, I used automatic weapon ban as bait, and it didn't work, but, you can not tell me that the powers that be will not change the word "terrorist" to mean anything they want.

Good night.

The word "terrorist" cannot be changed to mean anything they want.
The definition of "terrorist" is found in the US Code.
It is specific, and cannot be used loosely.

The Patriot Act includes an amendment to the US Code to change that definition to include a reference to chemical weapons (just keeping with the times).

The idea that the government will, or can just call gun owners "terrorists, is an idea born of ignorance.

Read the Patriot Act, and the appropriate sections of the US Code, and you'll know these things.
It is a surefire way to avoid making untrue statements about the Act.

Posted: 9/29/2004 6:15:29 PM EDT

[#30]

quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aql0idHZsJ_E&refer=top_world_news

Excerpts:

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- A judge struck down portions of the USA Patriot Act requiring Internet and telephone companies to surrender customer records sought in terrorism investigations and barring notice to clients that their data was handed over.
[...]
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan today said that the statute violates the U.S. Constitution because it doesn't allow for judicial review of the records request. He also said it conflicts with free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

Posted: 9/29/2004 9:28:40 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aql0idHZsJ_E&refer=top_world_news

Excerpts:

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- A judge struck down portions of the USA Patriot Act requiring Internet and telephone companies to surrender customer records sought in terrorism investigations and barring notice to clients that their data was handed over.
[...]
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan today said that the statute violates the U.S. Constitution because it doesn't allow for judicial review of the records request. He also said it conflicts with free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

Which is a bullshit decision and will not stand on appeal...

They said that sealing the records was unconstitutional, which is absurd, as this is a very common practice that has been upheld many times before... Basically, the judge had a hard-on for the Act, and decided to legislate from his bench...

This is a textbook example of an activist decision, similar to the one that said "You have a RIGHT to give aid & comfort to terrorists, so long as it is 'non violent'"...

Posted: 9/30/2004 7:48:27 AM EDT

[#32]

start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D85E1EQO0_story

The decision is the second time a judge has ruled unconstitutional part of the Patriot Act, a package of prosecution and surveillance tools passed shortly after the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001.

In January, a federal judge in Los Angeles struck down a section of the act that made it a crime to give "expert advice or assistance" to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations. The judge said the language was too vague, threatening First and Fifth Amendment rights.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Jameel Jaffer called the latest ruling a "landmark victory, and "a wholesale refutation of excessive government secrecy and unchecked executive power."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't know if that article is the same as the other one.

Dave_A, sure search warrants, or arrest warrants can be "sealed".

BUT when they are served there has to be notification made.

Generally that's straightforward with an arrestee, you tell'em the are ubder arrest and for what. The imformation that supported the warrant may still be "sealed" at that time.

There are rules about search warrants, leave a copy with the person in charge of the place searched, or at the place searched, along with a list of any items taken. The information that obtained the warrant doesn't have to be left with the warrant, but the actual warrant is "served".

Not notifiying people that a search warrant has been served is a signfigant change in the way serach warrants are served.

Posted: 9/30/2004 7:50:14 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Which is a bullshit decision and will not stand on appeal...

Which is your OPINION.

You asked for someone to prove part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and this recent court judgement shows it is. (at least for now).

Mission accomplished.

Posted: 9/30/2004 7:55:45 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Which is a bullshit decision and will not stand on appeal...

Which is your OPINION.

You asked for someone to prove part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and this recent court judgement shows it is. (at least for now).

Mission accomplished.

PROVES?

That an activist judge who has been on a crusade against the Patriot Act sides with the ACLU proves nothing.
The case was decided based on the 1st Amendment.
It will be shot down.

If an activist Judge ruled that gun ownership was not an individual right, according to the Constitution, would you consider that PROOF?

Eye of the beholder...

Posted: 9/30/2004 7:57:19 AM EDT

[#35]

It is proof legally.

Like it or not, our courts are the deciding voice in AmeriKa today.

Trust me, I have no love for the activist courts, but the Patriot Act worries the hell out of me too.

If an activist Judge ruled that gun ownership was not an ondividual right, according to the Constitution, would you consider that PROOF?

I would have to behave as if it were, if I wished to stay in the System and stay legal.

Afterall, we all obey the courts rulings regarding full auto, and many other things that I believe are unConstitutional.

Posted: 9/30/2004 8:24:55 AM EDT

[#36]

It isn't settled, until the appeals process is complete.

Posted: 9/30/2004 8:31:47 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

PROVES?

That an activist judge who has been on a crusade against the Patriot Act sides with the ACLU proves nothing.
The case was decided based on the 1st Amendment.
It will be shot down.

If an activist Judge ruled that gun ownership was not an individual right, according to the Constitution, would you consider that PROOF?

Eye of the beholder...

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again a cut-paste.

The Patriot Act dramitically changes how search warrants can be served.

Cincinnatus, ever heard the term "mission creep"? Laws often experience "definition creep". RICO was originally enacted to deal with "mafia" type prosecutions. It has been expended to just about any type of criminal conspiracy.

Kids playing with gun powder 30 yers ago were just "boys being boys", now they are being investigated as "domestic terrorists" possessing "WMD's".

Posted: 9/30/2004 8:37:44 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Which is a bullshit decision and will not stand on appeal...

Which is your OPINION.

You asked for someone to prove part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, and this recent court judgement shows it is. (at least for now).

Mission accomplished.

Actually, NOT accomplished

1) I asked for someone on this board to cite the specific provision of the Act

2) I asked them to cite the specific section of the Constitution it violated

3) I asked them to SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE activist judicial rulings.

This perticular ruling, btw, is also just an OPINION, and has no national standing UNTIL the USSC takes it up.

Expect them to rule that the USAPA does NOT violate the 1st Ammendment. I'll bet you a case of Wolf .223 that they don't concurr with this activist loon...

Posted: 9/30/2004 8:38:08 AM EDT

[#39]

But by that logic, ALL laws are bad, and therefore no laws in particular are bad.

Posted: 9/30/2004 8:43:30 AM EDT

[#40]

Sometimes it takes an "activist" judge to settle laws passed by "activist" legislators, and signed by "activist" presidents.

The judges are by no means the only "activists" in government today.

Posted: 9/30/2004 8:53:55 AM EDT

[#41]

The judge in this most recent case said that two provisions were unconstitutional. The first gave the feds authority to gather information from ISPs and phone companies without a warrant. The second prohibited anybody from ever revealing that these warrantless warrants had been issued. These powers existed in one form or another before PATRIOT, but they were more difficult to use and had more limitiations. Link to decision.

IMHO these powers are a bit troubling given the lack of judicial and congressional oversight. If you want a warrant, go to a judge. Hell, they are virtually rubber stamps anyway. And someone, presumably the judge issuing these warrants or possibly congress, needs to monitor the executive's activities.

Posted: 9/30/2004 9:49:06 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
It isnt unconstitutional, but it is Orwelian.

No, it's not.

There. Now we've each offered an unsupported and unverifiable opinion. Everyone's even, life can go on.

By the way, even if it were.. It would be "ORWELLIAN". Double-L. No points off this time, but I'll mark it wrong next time and make you write "I love Big Brother" 500 times on the chalkboard. Oh yea, and it's "N-apostrophe-T" on isn't. Contractions dontchaknow.

Posted: 9/30/2004 11:46:06 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
The judge in this most recent case said that two provisions were unconstitutional. The first gave the feds authority to gather information from ISPs and phone companies without a warrant. The second prohibited anybody from ever revealing that these warrantless warrants had been issued. These powers existed in one form or another before PATRIOT, but they were more difficult to use and had more limitiations. Link to decision.

IMHO these powers are a bit troubling given the lack of judicial and congressional oversight. If you want a warrant, go to a judge. Hell, they are virtually rubber stamps anyway. And someone, presumably the judge issuing these warrants or possibly congress, needs to monitor the executive's activities.

Check it all over again, this is not over search and siezure of persons, papers, or property from a suspect.

This is about obtaining information from an innocent 3rd party, and the fact that the information was required to be kept secret (common sense provision there, both to make said 3rd-parties more likely cooperate, and to keep from tipping off suspects)

This case is NOT likely to be upheld on appeal...

Posted: 9/30/2004 11:47:52 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Sometimes it takes an "activist" judge to settle laws passed by "activist" legislators, and signed by "activist" presidents.

The judges are by no means the only "activists" in government today.

Difference: Congress & the President are supposed to be 'activist'.

Judges are not, they are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law, not political hacks who 'strike down' a law as 'unconstitutional' simply because they do not like it.

Posted: 9/30/2004 12:14:07 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Check it all over again, this is not over search and siezure of persons, papers, or property from a suspect.

This is about obtaining information from an innocent 3rd party, and the fact that the information was required to be kept secret (common sense provision there, both to make said 3rd-parties more likely cooperate, and to keep from tipping off suspects)

Note that the constitution is a little broader than that. It does not just protect suspects; it protects "the people." ISPs are "people." Further, the constitution does not say that target's papers and effects necessarily have to be in their possession to be protected. Some information that my ISP has is definately my copyrighted property. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that digitized documents are "papers."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The question is what is reasonable, and only judges are qualified to answer that.

Warrants also have certain requirements, none of which are met by these NSLs. The judge in this case also questioned, I think reasonably, whether the issuance of these warrants that are not warrants really provides due process of law.

The secrecy provision was struck down on 1st amendment grounds. The text of the constitition could certainly be read this way.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

No "reasonable" language to fudge there. Of course the first amendment has never been read to be as broad as its text implies. It seems to me that there needs to be some balancing, but PATRIOT in this instance does not do that. The information can NEVER be discussed with ANYONE. Not even a lawyer, congressman or judge.

This case is NOT likely to be upheld on appeal...

I think you are probably correct, but Hamdi didn't go the way you neocons wanted so who knows.

Posted: 9/30/2004 1:22:12 PM EDT

[#46]

The real problem is the name: Patriot Act. WTF? What button downed 1950's dufuss thought that was a good name?

Oh gee, was the "Happiness Bill" already taken?

They could have called it the "anti-Terrorist" something, or "safety" blah blah, but no, it is "The Patriot Act," a title guarenteed to enrage every Bush/Ashcroft hater on the left and every tinfoil nut on the right. Brilliant.

Posted: 9/30/2004 1:39:05 PM EDT

[#47]

The issues that were raised earlier (I think by SteyrAUG) about how a lot of this stuff needs to be considred in a U.S. citizen versus non-U.S. citizen context is the part that raises questions for me. (and to a certain extent I don't think that's a discussion limited to the Patriot Act).

For instance, all this talk of the Patriot Act initially worried ME as a resident alien, because it wasn't entirely clear what the legal staus of a resident alien was. In fact, to me it raises the larger question of whether the U.S Consitution protects foreigners that are legally in the U.S. Do I still have all the protections of the Bill of Rights, or can a judge (or administation official) snap his fingers, and suddenly, I have no rights at all?

I also remember people repeating the "don't worry, it'll only affect foreigners" line - right up to the point where Jose Padilla was arrested in U.S. soil, and has his Consitutional Rights stripped from him, even though he was a U.S. citizen. Granted - I think those issues are in the process of working themselves out in the court system, and I don't think it is an issue actually related to the Patriot Act at all (correct me if I'm wrong, experts).

This may be a side issue, and I certainly don't expect it to really concern people too much - but I have always been curious as to how much I am guaranteed Consitutional protection, or whether I have it at the indulgence (or the whim) of the administration.

Posted: 9/30/2004 8:23:13 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
The issues that were raised earlier (I think by SteyrAUG) about how a lot of this stuff needs to be considred in a U.S. citizen versus non-U.S. citizen context is the part that raises questions for me. (and to a certain extent I don't think that's a discussion limited to the Patriot Act).

For instance, all this talk of the Patriot Act initially worried ME as a resident alien, because it wasn't entirely clear what the legal staus of a resident alien was. In fact, to me it raises the larger question of whether the U.S Consitution protects foreigners that are legally in the U.S. Do I still have all the protections of the Bill of Rights, or can a judge (or administation official) snap his fingers, and suddenly, I have no rights at all? basically, they are privledges in your case. You will generally be afforded these privledges, unless you do something to warrant being stripped of them.

I also remember people repeating the "don't worry, it'll only affect foreigners" line - right up to the point where Jose Padilla was arrested in U.S. soil, and has his Consitutional Rights stripped from him, even though he was a U.S. citizen. Granted - I think those issues are in the process of working themselves out in the court system, and I don't think it is an issue actually related to the Patriot Act at all (correct me if I'm wrong, experts). Padilla's case has nothing to do with PATRIOT. He was arrested as an enemy agent & confined to a military prison - he's being treated more like a POW than a criminal

This may be a side issue, and I certainly don't expect it to really concern people too much - but I have always been curious as to how much I am guaranteed Consitutional protection, or whether I have it at the indulgence (or the whim) of the administration. You have it, but only as long as the government feels like giving it to you. Of course, there IS a way to become perminantly entitled to it, for good folks like you (and it would also make it easier for you to buy a M1)..

Posted: 10/1/2004 6:37:20 AM EDT

[#49]

Can someone point to me in the law where it defines what exactly the government defines as 'terrorism'? I am trying to understand the recent court decision. If there is a concrete definition of terrorism, I think this would assuage some people's fears (some are scared that it is undefined and the gov. can make up any situation it wants to fit this definition.)

Doc

Posted: 10/1/2004 10:05:59 AM EDT

[#50]

www.rense.com/general16/thenewlegaldefinition.htm

USC Title 18...

For purposes of this paragraph, the term “terrorism” means activity, directed against United States persons, which—
(A) is committed by an individual who is not a national or permanent resident alien of the United States;
(B) involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States; and
(C) is intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

and...

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Great PATRIOT Act Challenge (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us