Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiJudge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act
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.
© 2007 The Associated Press
20 Comments so far
Show AllThis is one of those events of 'one step forward after three steps back'. While the damage has been done, it's good to see a judge standing up to the Bush cabal. Congratulations, everybody!!
...and donate 50 bucks to the ACLU today!!!
Thank you, Judge Marrero. It's people like you who give the rest of us hope that some people within our judicial system are willing to uphold constitutional law for the citizens of this country.
"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."
Are you tired of hearing the "national security" bullshit, yet? We must keep in mind that the "laws" restricting the government from collecting data on "sovereign citizens" of the United States do not apply to private industry. Private industry collects the data and then the government requests the data from private industry.
In short, the government obtains data on our private lives from corporations who collect it and then turn it over to government data mining agencies. By doing this, the government is working around its legal restrictions. Do you wonder why Congress has developed legislation that protects corporations from lawsuits?
If you purchased toilet paper with your credit card, the government knows what brand you use to wipe your ass. Domestic surveillance has infiltrated every aspect of our lives!
And if the government was the least bit concerned with national security issues, do you think they would allow private industry to collect and sell, or give this personal information to other agencies?
willybill...
actually, i am quite pleased. there may be hope yet to smash the fascists.
This is good news and thank you ACLU.
Cheers to Judge Marrero.
How about we all do something to rebuild our Constitution and
WRITE IN GORE!!!
It's hard to imagine the twisted minds that invoke the second ammendment every time gun control comes up - even though it explicitly ties the right to bear arms with militias (and was written at a time when assault rifles could not even be conceived of), but seem to have no problem stomping on the first ammendment whenever "fighting terrorism" can be used as an excuse.
The first ammendment grants freedom of speech to all Americans. How is it possible to prevent anyone from announcing that an order has been given to turn over information about citizens to the government? This is beyond Orwellian.
The damage has already been done. All the data 'mines' have already been dug, the treasure (data & records) has been stripped from the veins, and the thieves are already safely across the border. Getting these crooks to give back the data already stolen is like trying to un-speak a word, or recover funds to everyone who got screwed by Enron, or Haliburton, or Big Oil/Pharma/Agri, or the MIC, or well the list just goes on and on and on and on, doesn't it? What I'm saying here can be summed up in four appropriate words, "Too little, too late!".
The name "Patriot Act" tells us all we ever need to know about those who call themselves "patriotic".
While they say "I don't mind being wiretapped, I have nothing to hide," they only say it because the yip happily around the heels of master in between licking his privates. If a 'nasty, naughty, bad boy' from the "other" party were to become Master, they would suddenly whimper & snap.
Apologies to all canines for comparing them with the Bushits.
It's high time the angry villagers carrying torches and pitchforks march on those castles in Washington, D.C.
Our government has been taken over by Frankensteins cranking out monstrous legislation without any regard to the harm they are doing to the citizens of the countryside.
Now we get to be run over by drunken Mexican truck drivers with no liability insurance.
What is WRONG with these people?
Here we go with that pesky constitution thing again. I guess U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero missed the memo about that document being suspended until we rid the world of evil doers!
I really love the use of the word P.A.T.R.I.O.T as a acronym for "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". You gotta give these bushies credit for their advertising savvy. These guy's could sell ice water to Eskimos, of course with the way the ice is melting those Eskimos might actually have a need soon enough.
Ooops! here's another judge out of a job.
"We need a constitutional amendment that requires every member of Congress to read each law before they vote on it."
I would not be in favor of that.
I have serious doubts about the potential for abuse in any attempt to disqualify a candidate from eligibility for public office based on illiteracy. It's unethical to violate the privacy of government employees (including elected officials) by requiring them to publicly announce that they cannot read.
Instead of a mandatory requirement, I would set up grants for non-profit agencies to offer totally confidential remedial instruction, preferrably free, or with fees established on a sliding scale according to income so that the service can be afforded even on a US Senator's meager salary.
You can't shame someone into learning. It's better to encourage the educational endeavors of our congressmen through positive reinforcement.
As has been posted in other threads, many reps voted for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act without having read it.
We need a constitutional amendment that requires every member of Congress to read each law before they vote on it. It could require that the bill be read on the floor before debate opens, and if you don't attend the reading you can't vote on the bill.
Of course, we need alot more than that, and the entire political / social / ecological situation is spinning out of control so fast that attempts to tweak the law are probably like fiddling while Rome burns... but i still like to imagine...
Give it time..let's see how Bushingham Palace reacts. Hate to be the spoiler here, folks. But, Alfred E. Noman ain't gonna be happy.
Memo to Congress: Any time they have to give a bill a name like "PATRIOT ACT" in order to get it passed, you can be sure there's something very wrong with it.
Memo to self: send Thank You Note and money to ACLU.
There is still hope. Hope that some judges remain on the bench to impede the slow march toward a totaitarian, theocratic nation.
I have a feeling there are some flowers blooming near the graves of past judges who remained faithful to the Founding Father's vision of a constitution capable of dealing with the inevitable failure of those in positions of power to abuse that power and ignore the will of the people and subvert our Constitution.
A breath of fresh air - for the moment at least.
Alberto is probably kicking himself for not firing this activist judge when he had the chance.
Memo to self. Put a wiretap on Morrero.
Let's hope that there are more judges like Mr. Marrero.