FINALLY: Federal Judge Stikes Down Key Part of Patriot Act

AKA America begins its post 9-11 return to sanity

[quote] NEW YORK - A federal judge struck down a key part of the USA Patriot Act on Thursday in a ruling that defended the need for judicial oversight of laws and bashed Congress for passing a law that makes possible “far-reaching invasions of liberty.”

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero immediately stayed the effect of his ruling, allowing the government time to appeal. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said: “We are reviewing the decision and considering our options at this time.”

In his ruling, Marrero said much more was at stake than questions about the national security letters.

He said Congress, in the original USA Patriot Act and less so in a 2005 revision, had essentially tried to legislate how the judiciary must review challenges to the law. If done to other bills, they ultimately could all “be styled to make the validation of the law foolproof.”

Noting that the courthouse where he resides is several blocks from the fallen World Trade Center, the judge said the Constitution was designed so that the dangers of any given moment could never justify discarding fundamental individual liberties.

He said when “the judiciary lowers its guard on the Constitution, it opens the door to far-reaching invasions of liberty.”

Regarding the national security letters, he said, Congress crossed its boundaries so dramatically that to let the law stand might turn an innocent legislative step into “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.”[/quote]

Hallelujah

Thank goodness. It took 6 years, but at least but at least people are no longer acting on fear.

Can anyone remind me again as to what the major loss of rights that occurred under the Patriot Act actually involved? No? So… er…

Also, this is not the first judge to reverse aspects of the Patriot Act. Guess what? He too will have his decision overturned.

So celebrate all you want. It is sorta kinda like how the Democrat takeover of BOTH houses of Congress was going to lead to a major change and a huge challenge to the Bush administration particularly with regard to its management of the war in Iraq. Did it? No? er, so…

Well Fred…it made a Canadian and a Black ChiCom entertainer happy.

[quote=“Fred Smith”]Can anyone remind me again as to what the major loss of rights that occurred under the Patriot Act actually involved? No? So… er…

Also, this is not the first judge to reverse aspects of the Patriot Act. Guess what? He too will have his decision overturned.

So celebrate all you want. It is sorta kinda like how the Democrat takeover of BOTH houses of Congress was going to lead to a major change and a huge challenge to the Bush administration particularly with regard to its management of the war in Iraq. Did it? No? er, so…[/quote]

First of all, yes, Fred we are aware of what the Democratic congress is NOT doing and we are as pissed off as your are amused. I think one of the major factors is that in the kneejerk neurosis of the post 9/11 environment, the Democrats – other than a few visionaries like Kukinich and Gravel – are running scared, ever-fearful that the labels “soft on terror” or “unpatriotic” will attach themselves in the fickle and readily-manipulated public’s eyes. It’s hard to blame them, really, with mouthpieces like Hannity spouting this kind of crap: FOX News attempts to connect Osama bin Laden with American left and Democrats

This is why, in spite of a few misgivings, I still believe Ron Paul is this country’s best hope for 2008, for the same reason that “only Nixon could have gone to China.” He can say and do what almost no Democrat would dare, and NONE could get away with. And despite his problematic stances on health care, gun control, abortion and environmental protection, at least he alone among the Republican candidates truly stands for LIBERTY and against BIG GOVERNMENT.

As for the Patriot Act, well, for one thing I would point out that this judge gives a fairly persuasive argument. Did you read it? Any thoughts? And yes, his decision probably WILL get overturned in the climate of this corrupt, coercive and rule-of-law-hostile administration. But why does it make you so happy every time Bush once again “has his way” with justice?

And let us not forget that it was the Patriot Act that aided in the perversion of justice that occurred in the firing of those mid-term district attorneys, by allowing them to be summarily replaced without senate approval:

[quote]Okay, so we already know that the White House has now taken the unprecedented step of firing at least four and likely seven US Attorneys in the middle of their terms of office – at least some of whom are in the midst of corruption investigations of Bush administration officials and key Republican lawmakers. We also know that they’re taking advantage of a handy provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows the White House to replace these fired USAs with appointees who don’t need to be approved by the senate.

Given that these new USAs are being plopped into offices currently investigating Republicans and other administration officials and others into states with 2008 presidential candidates, there’s certainly ample opportunity for mischief. [/quote]

Read further to find out what kind of A___HOLES they are using to replace the conscientious and assiduous people they fired!

talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011958.php

When I get a chance, I’m gonna dig up an article I saw chronicling the huge number of warrant-less, botched FBI raids during the past YEAR that led to injuries, deaths of pets, property damage etc. thanks to the Patriot Act. Not to mention those vacuum-cleaner warrant-less eaves-dropping sweeps they’ve been doing, in which a citizen can’t even prove one has been illegally surveiled because that information is classified! (I’ve already posted a thread on that particular catch-22, incidentally, but I doubt any of you Bush apologists cared.)

And if you really, REALLY give a shit what path the Patriot Act has taken us down in terms of injustice and authoritarianism, I challenge you briefly remove your blinders and read or listen to this Peabody-Award-winning program: Habeas Schmabeas 2007.

[quote=“fred smith”]Can anyone remind me again as to what the major loss of rights that occurred under the Patriot Act actually involved? No? So… er…

Also, this is not the first judge to reverse aspects of the Patriot Act. Guess what? He too will have his decision overturned.

So celebrate all you want. It is sorta kinda like how the Democrat takeover of BOTH houses of Congress was going to lead to a major change and a huge challenge to the Bush administration particularly with regard to its management of the war in Iraq. Did it? No? er, so…[/quote]

One aspect that was declared unconstitutional by a federal district judge was the right of the government to detain anybody, even a US citizen, indefinitely if they are “suspected” of terrorism. And yes, it was overturned at the appeals level. Previously, the law allowed for a person suspected of terrorism to be detained for 48 hours. I agree that was not enough time to conduct an investigation, but “indefinitely” is far too vague to be good law in a democracy. What’s to stop the government from arresting political dissidents as terrorism suspects and holding them for years without trial? They aren’t doing this, but at the law stands, they could easily do so. What is your opinion on that?

I think most people opinions are, “As long as it is not me.”

As long as it is not me…

The right to know what you’re being charged for and to contest it, for one.

But didn’t a lot more of that happen before the Patriot Act was even enacted. Remember that woman called… um… Janet Reno? haha

So apparently, the evil Patriot Act is not the problem but an overarching federal government that does not always act perfectly. Strange that this was never a concern for Democrats when Clinton AND his attorney general Janet Reno were in office. Strange… so strange…

The Patriot Act governs US citizens, no? So far, the only person who had been unable to contest his prosecution was Jose Padilla but that seems to have been resolved in another court to everyone’s satisfaction. You are not confusing, perhaps, the treatment of foreign nationals, as in those at Guantanamo with the Patriot Act, are you?

The Patriot Act governs US citizens, no? So far, the only person who had been unable to contest his prosecution was Jose Padilla but that seems to have been resolved in another court to everyone’s satisfaction. You are not confusing, perhaps, the treatment of foreign nationals, as in those at Guantanamo with the Patriot Act, are you?[/quote]

No. The Constitution, which the Patriot Act is arguably in conflict with, applies to any persons in US jurisdiction. You are not that confused, are you?

Let’s see what happens when they break down your doors. hahaha. Then we will have a true convert and defender of the Fourth Amendment.

[quote]First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller [/quote]

In other news,

[quote]Brandon Mayfield settled part of his case against the federal government for $2 million in November but was allowed to continue to pursue his challenge of the Patriot Act. He says the government is continuing to violate his civil rights by retaining thousands of copied pages of his family’s personal information.

Mayfield was arrested May 6, 2004, after a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators in Madrid was incorrectly matched to him.[/quote]

oops. :unamused:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_ … DyI0pvzwcF

including enemy combattants? unlawful combattants? prisoners of war? I think that you are confusing constitutional rights with those granted under the Geneva Convention.

[quote]In other news,

Quote:
Brandon Mayfield settled part of his case against the federal government for $2 million in November but was allowed to continue to pursue his challenge of the Patriot Act. He says the government is continuing to violate his civil rights by retaining thousands of copied pages of his family’s personal information. Mayfield was arrested May 6, 2004, after a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators in Madrid was incorrectly matched to him.

oops. [/quote]

He was wrongfully arrested. Happens to people every day. Happened to lots of people prior to the Patriot Act. Can you share why he was awarded $2 million? and how that was specifically related to the Patriot Act?

including enemy combattants? unlawful combattants? prisoners of war? I think that you are confusing constitutional rights with those granted under the Geneva Convention.

[quote]In other news,

Quote:
Brandon Mayfield settled part of his case against the federal government for $2 million in November but was allowed to continue to pursue his challenge of the Patriot Act. He says the government is continuing to violate his civil rights by retaining thousands of copied pages of his family’s personal information. Mayfield was arrested May 6, 2004, after a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators in Madrid was incorrectly matched to him.

oops. [/quote]

Rubbish.

BroonAsserts

He was wrongfully arrested. Happens to people every day. Happened to lots of people prior to the Patriot Act. Can you share why he was awarded $2 million? and how that was specifically related to the Patriot Act?[/quote]

That’s your legal argument?

:laughing:

Oh? Do I need to have a LEGAL argument here? Okay, let’s play. Can you show me where this individual’s rights were infringed because of the Patriot Act specifically, citing precedent to prove that never before had such egregious occurrences, er, occurred before? And then give us something to explain why and how he was awarded $2 million and how that was DIRECTLY related to the provisions of the Patriot Act and how this, too, was unprecedented? Thanks so much…

I’m not amused. but then again, I’m not surprised either.

I’m also not surprised that the people who voted the Dems into a majority are pissed off.

Oh LORDY! If you guys can’t win the 2008 erection, what will you DO!?

Oh wait, I know. “The GOP hypocrits cheated.”

Gosh, I don’t know if I can do this for four more years.

I do believe that whoever is seen as repsonsible for weakening the PA will be crucified if any other major attack, or a string of smaller attacks happens on the sacred soil of the city on the hill.

Oh? Do I need to have a LEGAL argument here? Okay, let’s play. Can you show me where this individual’s rights were infringed because of the Patriot Act specifically, citing precedent to prove that never before had such egregious occurrences, er, occurred before? And then give us something to explain why and how he was awarded $2 million and how that was DIRECTLY related to the provisions of the Patriot Act and how this, too, was unprecedented? Thanks so much…[/quote]

As I said, that’s your legal argument?

You really want a beat-down that badly?

Your precedent question is not a legal standard I’ve ever heard of before. Please feel free to cite any case that talks about “never before had such egregious occurrences… occurred before” as authority. Go ahead. Try. take your time.

And while you’re at it, please feel free to cite any authority that such and such statute is OK, as applied to this case, when it comes to constitutional rights, because, to paraphrase, wrongful arrests occur all the time. (It is a different argument that the law does not protect persons that no wrongful arrests occur at all under a reasonable standard)

How and why he was awarded 2 Million dollars in a Settlement does not tell us anything about the strength or merit of his claims. In fact, you should be avoiding that point as it’s not to your advantage.

Thanks for playing Fred.

Let’s keep this simple.

The Patriot Act exists.
I support the Patriot Act.
Others do not.
They claim it is unconstitutional.
Please show me how it is unconstitutional.

Many thanks!