Sections of the act violate the first amendment and separation of powers, according to Victor Marrero, a Clinton appointee.
As a result, the FBI can no longer issue "NSL", national security letters without a warrant.
Apparently the legal issue stems not from the blanket nature of the letters, nor the lack of a warrant, but from the inability of recipients to acknowledge the existence of such letters, and insufficient oversight.
Marrero has struck down this law before, and even now there is a 90 day period under which the program can continue while a remedy is considered.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html
At the end of the day, there is a tradeoff between security and privacy. And the equilibrium has shifted toward security. And the question is, how far are you willing to go?
There are those on this forum who have stated the patriot act does not erode privacy. You know who you are. Hi there. Yes, congress passes the patriot act overwhelmingly. HR 3162 passed the senate 98-1-1. The one opposing voice was Russ Feingold, which is one of the many reasons why he is most suited to be president. (Yes, I know he isn't running, yes I know he is unlikely to win - note the vote: it was overwhelming).
Setting aside the grounds of the above case, does anyone want the government to essentially go fishing for data without a warrant?
Lastly, although the final T is patriot is for terrorism, the act is not restricted to terrorism related crimes. It can be used for anything. And it has.
Edited, Sep 6th 2007 1:00pm by yossarian
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Yes, Virginia, the Patriot Act really is unconstitutional.
Yes, Virginia, the Patriot Act really is unconstitutional.Follow
They can still issue NSLs. They just have to get a court order for them, like they were supposed to do all along.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
They can still issue NSLs. They just have to get a court order for them, like they were supposed to do all along.
Thanks. Yes. Except that I think the law was written, and revised, so they could get a warrant after the fact. And even use the evidence gathered via the NSL to justify the warrant.
yossarian wrote:
Samira wrote:
They can still issue NSLs. They just have to get a court order for them, like they were supposed to do all along.
Thanks. Yes. Except that I think the law was written, and revised, so they could get a warrant after the fact. And even use the evidence gathered via the NSL to justify the warrant.
And they would have gotten away with it, too, except they had this bad habit of never getting the damn warrant at all.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Wow. Way to misread the entire article (and the issue itself).
This is not about privacy. It's not about the "evil" government spying on you. I just love how the article says one thing, but you're all responding as though it says what you want it to say instead.
The constitutional issue is that of free speech, not privacy. There is no problem with the gaining of the information itself. It's the fact that those served cannot tell anyone about it that is a tickling point.
Try to actually understand the issue...
This is not about privacy. It's not about the "evil" government spying on you. I just love how the article says one thing, but you're all responding as though it says what you want it to say instead.
The constitutional issue is that of free speech, not privacy. There is no problem with the gaining of the information itself. It's the fact that those served cannot tell anyone about it that is a tickling point.
Try to actually understand the issue...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Oddly enough, I had a major yawn attack after clicking on this thread.
You have a gift yoss.
You have a gift yoss.
gbaji wrote:
Wow. Way to misread the entire article (and the issue itself).
This is not about privacy. It's not about the "evil" government spying on you. I just love how the article says one thing, but you're all responding as though it says what you want it to say instead.
The constitutional issue is that of free speech, not privacy. There is no problem with the gaining of the information itself. It's the fact that those served cannot tell anyone about it that is a tickling point.
Try to actually understand the issue...
This is not about privacy. It's not about the "evil" government spying on you. I just love how the article says one thing, but you're all responding as though it says what you want it to say instead.
The constitutional issue is that of free speech, not privacy. There is no problem with the gaining of the information itself. It's the fact that those served cannot tell anyone about it that is a tickling point.
Try to actually understand the issue...
"several aspects of the revised nondisclosure provision of the NSL statute violate the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers."
You jumped all over that didn't you?
gbaji wrote:
Wow. Way to misread the entire article (and the issue itself).
This is not about privacy. It's not about the "evil" government spying on you. I just love how the article says one thing, but you're all responding as though it says what you want it to say instead.
The constitutional issue is that of free speech, not privacy. There is no problem with the gaining of the information itself. It's the fact that those served cannot tell anyone about it that is a tickling point.
Try to actually understand the issue...
This is not about privacy. It's not about the "evil" government spying on you. I just love how the article says one thing, but you're all responding as though it says what you want it to say instead.
The constitutional issue is that of free speech, not privacy. There is no problem with the gaining of the information itself. It's the fact that those served cannot tell anyone about it that is a tickling point.
Try to actually understand the issue...
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution's separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process.
You cite your favorite clause. I'll cite mine.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
Wow. Way to misread the entire article (and the issue itself).
This is not about privacy.
This is not about privacy.
I didn't quote the more incendiary comments by the judge, as quoted in the article:
Patriot Act provisions related to NSLs are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."
and further:
"in light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual's personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association--particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies--a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes."
Emphasis mine.
But since gbaji is demonstrating his unique character again I have.
By the way, as I noted, he is a Clinton appointee. As such I expect him to support our privacy against "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering" and "intrusion into the individual's personal affairs".
gbaji wrote:
The constitutional issue is that of free speech, not privacy.
Yes, as I said: "Apparently the legal issue stems not from ... but from the inability of recipients to acknowledge the existence of such letters, and insufficient oversight."
(I've removed the extraneous comments so as to make it easier to read).
The article says: "U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution's separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process."
I apologize if my summary is misleading to anyone who isn't gbaji.
If my government told me I couldn't tell anyone about a letter they sent me I'd blow it up and post it on a f'n billboard on the 401. Who the heck do they think they are telling me what I can and can not tell people regarding the goings on of my life.
Kalish wrote:
"several aspects of the revised nondisclosure provision of the NSL statute violate the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers."
You jumped all over that didn't you?
You jumped all over that didn't you?
Er? Yes. I actually read the article and understood it.
I was observing the degree to which others apparently did not:
yossarian wrote:
There are those on this forum who have stated the patriot act does not erode privacy. You know who you are. Hi there.
Implies this has to do with privacy rights. It does not.
yossarian wrote:
Setting aside the grounds of the above case, does anyone want the government to essentially go fishing for data without a warrant?
Again. Even though the article specifically says it has nothing to do with the warrants, he mentions it anyway.
Samira wrote:
They can still issue NSLs. They just have to get a court order for them, like they were supposed to do all along.
And she follows up, ignoring the article and talking about warrants.
yossarian wrote:
Thanks. Yes. Except that I think the law was written, and revised, so they could get a warrant after the fact. And even use the evidence gathered via the NSL to justify the warrant.
Hey! Still talking about warrants. You guys do know that this isn't about the warrants, right? It says so right in the article. Heck. Yoss quoted it...
Samira wrote:
And they would have gotten away with it, too, except they had this bad habit of never getting the damn warrant at all.
Sure. It's a joke. But the joke implies both that this is about warrants (it isn't), and that the problem is that they aren't following the rules with regard to those warrants (wrong *and* irrelevant)
Um... Every single comment on the thread in response to the article talked about warrants, even though the article specifically said that the issue had nothing to do with privacy or the legality of the warrants.
So yeah. I'm going to point out the obvious when it's so clear no one else figured it out...
Edited, Sep 6th 2007 1:58pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Samira wrote:
Quote:
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution's separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process.
You cite your favorite clause. I'll cite mine.
Judicial oversight in this context isn't about the legality of the warrants. It's about the separation of powers issue.
See. If it was about a violation of privacy he actually would have ruled that way. He didn't. His ruling said it violated the 1st amendment and the principle of Separation of Powers.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yodabunny wrote:
If my government told me I couldn't tell anyone about a letter they sent me I'd blow it up and post it on a f'n billboard on the 401. Who the heck do they think they are telling me what I can and can not tell people regarding the goings on of my life.
It's not a letter (like you'd receive in the mail or something). They serve a subpoena to a business (typically a phone or internet service) to search their records. This subpoena (the "national security letter") includes a provision that the business cannot tell anyone that they've provided the requested information (hence the "security" part of national security).
We can debate the degree to which a phone company should have a "right" to tell people that the government has requested it's records, but that absolutely has nothing to do with a privacy violation. Again. The judge did not rule that this was a violation of anyone's privacy.
Yet every single poster assumed that it was and responded as though it was. That's all I was commenting on.
Edited, Sep 6th 2007 2:06pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji, are you a conservative or a republican apologist?
I personally know that a real conservative would be appalled by the expansion of government--seeing it as illegal and unconstitutional-- mandated by the Patriot Act.
I am personally not a conservative but have some respect for ideals that stems from conservatism-- the current administration doesn't seem conservative at all, just overtly Christian and expansionist. Now when you have two parties rushing to expand the Federal Government, I'm not sure how you can use traditional political categorizations of liberal vs. conservative.
I personally know that a real conservative would be appalled by the expansion of government--seeing it as illegal and unconstitutional-- mandated by the Patriot Act.
I am personally not a conservative but have some respect for ideals that stems from conservatism-- the current administration doesn't seem conservative at all, just overtly Christian and expansionist. Now when you have two parties rushing to expand the Federal Government, I'm not sure how you can use traditional political categorizations of liberal vs. conservative.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
yossarian wrote:
I apologize if my summary is misleading to anyone who isn't gbaji.
Lol. Apparently, your summary was misleading to you.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Grandmother Annabella wrote:
I personally know that a real conservative would be appalled by the expansion of government--seeing it as illegal and unconstitutional-- mandated by the Patriot Act.
I am a "real conservative". And I have been and am concerned with many aspects of the Patriot Act. However, I limit my criticisms to the actual bits that are of concern, and I try to correctly target my concerns at the actual problems in the law, not exaggerate them or misrepresent them in order to gain more support for my concerns.
I'm far more concerned with "knee-jerk politics" resulting from people seeing what they assume is there rather then what's really there. And this article (and yoss and Samira's take on it) is a prime example. The article specifically said that there was no constitutional violation of privacy in the law, but despite that those two assumed exactly the opposite and proceeded to comment as though the ruling was about a privacy violation.
My problem is that this is very very dangerous politics. It results in people following a course of action because they've somehow arrived at the wrong conclusions regarding some issue. I don't know how or why this happens, but it seems to occur consistently lately in our political discussions. Something will happen, but instead of looking at the facts about what happens, many people seem to automatically make an assumption about those facts and no amount of pointing out the real facts dissuades them.
And yeah. I'm far more concerned about that. Because we do live in a democracy (ok. Republic). And if a "side" of politics can so easily convince people to ignore facts and follow their assumptive positions instead, then they can get people to vote for *anything*. Afterall, if you can't correctly identify a set of facts when they are written directly in front of you, how can you be expected to do so when it comes to election day? You're going to vote based on assumptions that have been planted into your brain rather then the facts about the candidates.
Quote:
I am personally not a conservative but have some respect for ideals that stems from conservatism-- the current administration doesn't seem conservative at all, just overtly Christian and expansionist. Now when you have two parties rushing to expand the Federal Government, I'm not sure how you can use traditional political categorizations of liberal vs. conservative.
Ask yourself why you believe that about the current administration? Have you actually looked at their actions? Or just read the "responses" from people talking *about* the Bush administration? I think that if you stop and look at the actual facts, you'll find that the Bush administration has followed classical conservative ideals a lot more closely then you have been lead to believe. The problem is that those who have been most vocally interpreting their actions are Liberals. They have this odd habit of redefining what Conservatives should be based on their own assumptions rather then the facts.
Look at the facts not the rhetoric.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I read the article and understood it too.
Nevermind that I, much like Neph, found it boring and didn't even read. I said I did read it and understand it, so despite the fact that the things I said afterwards clearly indicate that I did not, I ardently maintain that my original claim is true.
See how easy it is to go the gbaji route?
Nevermind that I, much like Neph, found it boring and didn't even read. I said I did read it and understand it, so despite the fact that the things I said afterwards clearly indicate that I did not, I ardently maintain that my original claim is true.
See how easy it is to go the gbaji route?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Yossarian wrote:
The one opposing voice was Russ Feingold, which is one of the many reasons why he is most suited to be president.
Russell Feingold wrote:
Protecting the safety of the American people is a solemn duty of the Congress; we must work tirelessly to prevent more tragedies like the devastating attacks of September 11th. We must prevent more children from losing their mothers, more wives from losing their husbands, and more firefighters from losing their brave and heroic colleagues. But the Congress will fulfill its duty only when it protects both the American people and the freedoms at the foundation of American society. So let us preserve our heritage of basic rights. Let us practice that liberty. And let us fight to maintain that freedom that we call America.
Link to Entire Speech
He's 0/2 on the bolded part. Doubt he'd be elected.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
Oddly enough, I had a major yawn attack after clicking on this thread.
You have a gift yoss.
You have a gift yoss.
I have a reputation to uphold :)
To me, this is really exciting. I dance around my office in a little circle and play "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead".mp3 off my desktop.
Just kidding...but would it be more exciting if I had written that? No, probably not. Maybe I should lead with the most dramatic partisan comments from the Judge?
gbaji wrote:
So yeah. I'm going to point out the obvious when it's so clear no one else figured it out...
Atomicflea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So yeah. I'm going to point out the obvious when it's so clear no one else figured it out...
So... Are you saying that yossarian and Samira both readn and understood the article, but for some reason deliberately implied a conclusion that wasn't supported by the article itself?
What other options are there? They either accidentally posted the wrong conclusions, or they purposefully did it. One or the other, right?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Grandmother Annabella wrote:
gbaji, are you a conservative or a republican apologist?
Hi! You must be new here, Welcome to the Asylum!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
gbaji wrote:
What other options are there?
Option C:
You are an twunt.
yossarian wrote:
Sections of the act violate the first amendment and separation of powers, according to Victor Marrero, a Clinton appointee.
As a result, the FBI can no longer issue "NSL", national security letters without a warrant.
As a result, the FBI can no longer issue "NSL", national security letters without a warrant.
The results of this ruling according to this article are:
Quote:
Marrero's decision would bar the use of NSLs to demand data from electronic communications companies, a procedure that was the focus of the lawsuit. But the ruling appears to leave untouched the FBI's ability to demand bank records, credit reports and other financial data related to counterterrorism and other probes, because those authorities are covered by other statutes, according to legal experts. Marrero delayed enforcement of his order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal.
What I found interesting here was the number of NSL requests has grown from around 9,000 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2005. Them FBI agents be workin' hard eh?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
gbaji, are you a conservative or a republican apologist?
He seems to just like to debate for virtually every action supported by a republican administration.
Elinda wrote:
What I found interesting here was the number of NSL requests has grown from around 9,000 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2005. Them FBI agents be workin' hard eh?
Well, there was this whole terrorist attack thing that happened between those two dates.
Just sayin'
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 191
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (191)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Yes, Virginia, the Patriot Act really is unconstitutional.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC