http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/29/secret.searches.ap/index.html Judge blocks part of Patriot Act Secret searches unconstitutional, he rules Wednesday, September 29, 2004 Posted: 6:41 PM EDT (2241 GMT) NEW YORK (AP) -- Declaring that personal security is as important as national security, a judge Wednesday blocked the government from conducting secret, unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records as part of its fight against terrorism. The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling a "landmark victory" against the Justice Department's post-September 11 law enforcement powers. "Today's ruling is a wholesale refutation of excessive government secrecy and unchecked executive power," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down a provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI to force Internet service providers and phone companies to turn over certain customer records. The companies are then barred from ever disclosing the search took place. In his ruling, the judge called national security of "paramount value" and said the government "must be empowered to respond promptly and effectively" to threats. But he called personal security equal in importance and "especially prized in our system of justice." Marrero said his ruling blocks the government from issuing the requests or from enforcing the non-disclosure provision "in this or any other case." But the ruling will not immediately take effect to allow for an appeal. Megan L. Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor's office in Manhattan, said the government was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment. 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. He noted that the Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." "Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good," Marrero wrote. Marrero issued his decision in favor of an Internet access firm identified in his 120-page ruling as "John Doe." He had agreed to keep the firm's identity secret to protect the FBI probe that led to the search request. Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer, said the government had turned over as part of the lawsuit a six-page document showing it had obtained Internet or telephone records dozens and possibly hundreds of times. The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by legislation passed after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. In a footnote to his ruling, Marrero cited words he had written two years ago in another case to warn that courts must apply "particular vigilance to safeguard against excess committed in the name of expediency." "The September 11 cases will challenge the judiciary to do September 11 justice, to rise to the moment with wisdom equal to the task, its judgments worthy of the large dimensions that define the best September 11 brought out of the rest of American society." lyosha ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

Checks and Balances that were put into place in the Constitution at work to prevent government tyranny. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

this must be the same judge who wanted to wed gays and lesbians. what else is new?

Вчера наконец-то впервые спал с девушкой. Ну и ничего в этом особенного нет. Теплее, конечно, но уж очень тесно.

---

советская империя утратила свой стиль раньше, чем потеряла свою власть

quote:

---

this must be the same judge who wanted to wed gays and lesbians. what else is new?

---

I doubt that it had anything to do with a liberal judge but it had more to do with the judicial branch checking the power of the executive and legislative branches. I am sure you know that the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches check the power of each other. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

It is a good start.

Mestiza is right. Civil liberties are not always a liberal/conservative issue. Conservatives are sometimes even more protective of civil liberties than liberals are. I am a little concerned about judges myself, but that's normal. They are opinionated, unelected, controvercial officials. An integral part of the system, that is the best system in the world. Of course someone is going to disagree with every single decision.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

I agree with the judges decision in this case and I thank God we have a system of checks and balances, otherwise a decision like this wouldn't be possible. If the appeal fails then they are going to be forced to change some parts of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is also due to expire here soon from what I understand. I am not sure if they will renew it or not. If they do, they might renew a more watered version than the current one. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

Egor you also make a good point where conservatives are sometimes very protective about rights... and a good example of that is gun rights were liberals are more anti-gun. Liberals tend to view the right to bear arms more as privelege where conservatives view it as a right. So in an example like this...the conservatives defend the right to bear arms. I myself as a more conservative leaning person view the right to bear arms as necessary to ensuring the long term survival of our liberties. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

I agree with this judge too. This is a very complex issue, and I am not 100% against everything in the patriot act. What i am most against is the name :) The example with the right to bear arms is a good one, I was going to use it originally, but didnt want to stir up any emotions :) Also a complex issue, it is just a matter of drawing a line somewhere. I would draw it at automatic weapons.. You cant seriously have people owning tanks and apache helocopters with live missiles :)

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: You cant seriously have people owning tanks and apache helocopters with live missiles :)

---

Why not ?

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

one reason is because it will cause those annoying arguments like "hellfire missiles dont kill people, people kill people." :)

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: one reason is because it will cause those annoying arguments like "hellfire missiles dont kill people, people kill people." :)

---

And what is wrong with that argument ?

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

What we have here is a simple conflict of different branches of Government when no matter what people (elected officials) what, activist judges will try to rule this country their own way... "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." - Jed Babbin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: one reason is because it will cause those annoying arguments like "hellfire missiles dont kill people, people kill people." :)

---

And what is wrong with that argument ?

---

I said what's wrong - its annoying :) Look, its bad enogh gangs in LA for example are armed to the teeth with once legally sold weapons. I guess we can live with that. But imagine if they had grenade launchers! If Texas and Michigan militias, instead of stockpiling semi-automatic rifles were stockpiling heavy military equipment. Yes, they are afraid of the government, but as an American I am not particularly interested these conflicts taking place. Our democratically elected government owns the military, that has been the way regardless of the 2nd amendment, and that's the way it works. And lastly, we have no evidence how the founding fathers would treat planes and tanks had they existed. Even machine guns. We have to assume what they would say. There is no agreement on this, so it has to be decided politically.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

I said what's wrong - its annoying :) Why ? Truth can't be annoying. Look, its bad enogh gangs in LA for example are armed to the teeth with once legally sold weapons. They are not. They are armed with illegal weapons. I guess we can live with that. But imagine if they had grenade launchers! If Texas and Michigan militias, instead of stockpiling semi-automatic rifles were stockpiling heavy military equipment. They already do. It is very easy do buy real automatic weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers) , all you have to do is become a member of the club and get special license. Yes, they are afraid of the government, but as an American I am not particularly interested these conflicts taking place. Our democratically elected government owns the military, that has been the way regardless of the 2nd amendment, and that's the way it works. And ? What does military has to do with me owning a tank ? And lastly, we have no evidence how the founding fathers would treat planes and tanks had they existed. Even machine guns. We have to assume what they would say. There is no agreement on this, so it has to be decided politically. Yes. So ? Don't see no problems with any kind of weapons owning. (well, ok nuks are out )

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....