(at least in part)
From wired.com:
"U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential records from companies, like internet service providers, as part of terrorism investigations.
The move strikes down section 505 of the Patriot Act, which gives the FBI power to demand information from companies without a court order and bars recipients of the letters from ever revealing that they received the FBI demand for records. Marrero held that this permanent ban was a violation of free-speech rights."
Full story:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65136,00.html
Decision:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04CV2614_Opinion_092904.pdf
Originally posted by richjohnsonFantastic, my only question is what the hell took so long!? My knowledge of constitutional law is limited to the 'table scraps' my fiancee left during her years in law school and I knew it was unconstitutional from the beginning. Damn Bush administration..sheesh!
(at least in part)
From wired.com:
"U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential records from companies, like internet service providers, as part of terrorism investigations.
The move strikes down section 505 of the Patriot Act, which gives ...[text shortened]... 283,65136,00.html
Decision:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04CV2614_Opinion_092904.pdf
TheSkipper
1 edit
Originally posted by richjohnsonEven b4 the act was passed, the u.s. were using their economic muscle to bully airlines into revealing the details of their passengers. I know the Irish airlines complied, because without the american routes, they would go bankrupt.
The move strikes down section 505 of the Patriot Act, which gives the FBI power to demand information from companies without a court order and bars recipients of the letters from ever revealing that they received the FBI demand for reco ...[text shortened]... d that this permanent ban was a violation of free-speech rights."
Its good to hear the courts are still seeing things in a clear manner, although I'm guessing this ruling won't make any difference to the policy of bullying airlines into supplying the info. As far as I know, the u.s. Supreme court ruled the Guantanamo Bay detentions illegal in June, but have they ceased? In fact the u.s. occupation of Guantanamo Bay in itself is illegal, but are they still there?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakExcellent points, although now you should prepare yourself for a number of posts accusing you of being an "America basher". Have fun... 😉
Even b4 the act was passed, the u.s. were using their economic muscle to bully airlines into revealing the details of their passengers. I know the Irish airlines complied, because without the american routes, they would go bankrupt.
Its good to hear the courts are still seeing things in a clear manner, although I'm guessing this ruling won't make any ...[text shortened]... fact the u.s. occupation of Guantanamo Bay in itself is illegal, but are they still there?
D
TheSkipper
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperYou can't blame Bush entirely for passing that act.
Damn Bush administration..sheesh!
The american government has a history of using war to pass new acts/laws which people would normally reject. Its easier when the people are afflicted with masses of hate and fear and the need to be protected, which wars tend to instill in people.
You just have to look at the Espionage Act of 1917 to see evidence of this. Socialism was at its peak around the time, with meetings of 5, 10, 20 thousan people rallying to protest the war, the draft and profiteering (see the thread 'Who profits from War and how' to see examples of this profiteering). The capitalist government of the time introduced the Espionage Act which prohibited anyone from obstructing the draft, including the act of speaking out against it.
The Act was a tool to destroy socialism and the Industrial Workers of the World, which was a union at the time, looking for better wages, conditions, etc. It had huge support but the government used the Espionage Act to put away hundreds of the IWW leaders for up to 20 years. Here are some examples of the reasons for the prison sentences...
A guy, Eugene Debs got 10 years for saying the following: 'Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder...and that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared war; the subject class has always fought the battles.'
An elderly famer said:'that the war was for big bugs on Wall Street; that it was foolishness to send our boys over there to get killed by the thousands, all for the sake of Wall Street.' 5 years.
Socialist Kate Richards O'Hare said: 'the women of the United States are nothing more nor less than brood sows, to raise children to get into the army and be made into fertiliser.' 5 years in prison for that!!!
The funny thing about the Espionage Act (if it can be considered funny), is that it was rushed through so quickly by the big wigs, that they never even thought it through right. It actually criminalised the singing of the third verse of the national anthem, ffs!!!
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI agree that Bush had/has historical precedent to push the Patriot Act through congress. However, I can still blame him for preying upon the fears of the country for his own purposes. For the record, I blame members of the house and senate (on both sides of the isle) for passing this hasty and damaging piece of legislation.
You can't blaim Bush entirely for passing that act.
The american government has a history of using war to pass new acts/laws which people would normally reject. Its easier when the people are afflicted with masses of hate and fear and the need to be protected, which wars tend to instill in people.
You just have to look at the Espionage Act of 1917 t ...[text shortened]... actually criminalised the singing of the third verse of the national anthem, ffs!!!
D
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipper'Hasty' is right. Not one member of either the House or the Senate read the entirety of the PATRIOT Act before voting it into law. That is a substantial indictment of our political process.
I agree that Bush had/has historical precedent to push the Patriot Act through congress. However, I can still blame him for preying upon the fears of the country for his own purposes. For the record, I blame members of the house and senate (on both sides of the isle) for passing this hasty and damaging piece of legislation.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by bbarrAll they had to do was read the name of it to decide it was good!
'Hasty' is right. Not one member of either the House or the Senate read the entirety of the PATRIOT Act before voting it into law. That is a substantial indictment of our political process.
Ah, "The Patriot Act", it sounds like freedom to me. PASSED!
Originally posted by bbarrI'm not sure, but I think a similar thing happened with the DMCA. The movie industry drafted it and got one of their flunkies to present it as a bill. I'm not sure if it was really debated until AFTER it was passed. 😕
'Hasty' is right. Not one member of either the House or the Senate read the entirety of the PATRIOT Act before voting it into law. That is a substantial indictment of our political process.
1 edit
Originally posted by richjohnsonIf I were a congressional staffer, I'd just start inserting bitchin' sections into these unread bills. Henceforth, Bennett A. Staffer will receive a monthly stipend of one Gold Brick from the U.S. Treasury. Or, Henceforth, the Capitol of the the United States will be located in Newark, N.J.. Or, Henceforth, France must officially approve any proposed use of the U.S. military prior to its deployment.
I'm not sure, but I think a similar thing happened with the DMCA. The movie industry drafted it and got one of their flunkies to present it as a bill. I'm not sure if it was really debated until AFTER it was passed. 😕
Originally posted by bbarrIsn't that true of most laws/acts passed by the senate? I heard a quote from a senator once where he stated that senators don't read most of the documents put in front of them.
'Hasty' is right. Not one member of either the House or the Senate read the entirety of the PATRIOT Act before voting it into law. That is a substantial indictment of our political process.
That leads me to the belief that laws that do get passed, are the laws that lobbyists have been able to get the largest 'contributions' for the 'charity funds' that the senators set up.
D
Originally posted by richjohnsonYou are not an "american basher".
(at least in part)
From wired.com:
"U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential records from companies, like internet service providers, as part of terrorism investigations.
The move strikes down section 505 of the Patriot Act, which gives ...[text shortened]... 283,65136,00.html
Decision:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04CV2614_Opinion_092904.pdf
You are a commie. Huh, Rich.
snark.
How is the losers club? Are you president yet?
I would actually pay to see your meetings. What a sight. All those worn out commies. So sad.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI thought you would hate the PATRIOT Act, St. Valley. It allows the government to wiretap citizens without a warrant, keep files on political dissidents, collect records from libraries of the books people check out, and so on. The PATRIOT Act constitutes an extreme attack on our civil liberties, and in effect repeals the protections put in place after the disasterous and highly illegal COINTELPRO operations of 1956-1971. With your opposition to the Secret Police common to tolalitarian regimes, and your support of individual rights, I figured you would be a staunch opponent of the PATRIOT Act.
You are not an "american basher".
You are a commie. Huh, Rich.
snark.
How is the losers club? Are you president yet?
I would actually pay to see your meetings. What a sight. All those worn out commies. So sad.
Originally posted by bbarrYou are right. I do hate it. But see it's need while people will kill hundreds of children in schools. When we win... I will fight to get it removed. Till then I want it. Being above the law.
I thought you would hate the PATRIOT Act, St. Valley. It allows the government to wiretap citizens without a warrant, keep files on political dissidents, collect records from libraries of the books people check out, and so on. The PATRIOT Act constitutes an extreme attack on our civil liberties, and in effect repeals the protections put in place after the di ...[text shortened]... your support of individual rights, I figured you would be a staunch opponent of the PATRIOT Act.
As to what I read. Enjoy. May everyone read and learn as I have.
I care not that the silly buggers see that I have read all of Engles and Marx. Everyone should. Not?
In all out war... which we are in with islam. Don't expect me to tie the hand of those who want to crush the buggers. I only wish them luck.