ACLU files lawsuit against Patriot Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
CMhichael said "If I recall correctly there is a procedure of which judge they would have to go to."

Anyone prove or disprove this?

To JimP do not leave because of one incorrect remark, besides I have more to add. If I get time tonight, I would like to tally up everything, organise it, and note everything that has gone unchallenged.

No one has touched 214, the section I posted. It has a few nasty violations.

My reply to alan is, probaly not, most spam is legal, and there are laws for spam.
 
In fact here is section 214 which is contrary to the interpretation that you posted. Notice it also says "a certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person.."

It goes to show how the rhetoric of the anti PAers have little to do with the reality of the PA.

The application for a warrant must be very specific.

SEC. 214. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE AUTHORITY UNDER FISA.
(a) APPLICATIONS AND ORDERS- Section 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1842) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `for any investigation to gather foreign intelligence information or information concerning international terrorism' and inserting `for any investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution';
(2) by amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
`(2) a certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or is relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.';
(3) by striking subsection (c)(3); and
(4) by amending subsection (d)(2)(A) to read as follows:
`(A) shall specify--
`(i) the identity, if known, of the person who is the subject of the investigation;
`(ii) the identity, if known, of the person to whom is leased or in whose name is listed the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied;
`(iii) the attributes of the communications to which the order applies, such as the number or other identifier, and, if known, the location of the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied and, in the case of a trap and trace device, the geographic limits of the trap and trace order.'.
 
Lawdog may I please have your attention. This is Section 213. The one you were freaking about of how the Feds don't have to tell the target about the search.

Notice it says that "may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

So let's say there is an imminent terrorst attack. The Feds want to capture the culprits. The Feds telling the target that some material may make it much more difficult to step the impending attack. That is a good reason IMO to delay telling the target. That could be a possible adverse effect.




WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
 
Oh and notice please that the target of the warrants needs to be told immediately with few exceptions which are listed above.
 
Sorry one more thing if not immediately then notification of the target can be delayed "for good cause shown."

It's funny how a few words make a difference, huh?
 
Rock Jock: I agree that arming passengers is not going to happen, but I believe it would work. Why would terrorists start shooting on a plane if they would just kill a few people, and then be killed themselves. They would have much better odds at a school for mass murder. That assumes we get armed pilots and better doors to go with the armed passengers.

As for how to fight terrorism, thats a tough one. We did not fail because the federal buracracies were not powerful enough. They were not even onto the terrorists iirc. I doubt more power would have helped. Two were given citizenship nine months after the attack, I think that points to our problem. The quality of the agencies themselves, not their "lack" of power. We have seen some nasty abuses by the feds, and except in the most extreme cases nothing happens, and even when something does it is a joke.

I agree we should not destroy 100% of the PA, but a lot of it needs to go. Especially every part that involves secrecy and violates the BOR.
 
Sorry one more thing if not immediately then notification of the target can be delayed "for good cause shown."

It's funny how a few words make a difference, huh?
Click to expand...

Considering that that exact quote has been a point of contention in at least one of my discourses, I'm starting to get the impression that I'm wasting bandwidth here. :banghead:

*sigh*

It boils down to this: I don't give a tinkers' damn about how noble an unConstitutional law is; I don't give a tinkers' damn about how well-intentioned an unConstitutional law is; I don't give a tinkers' damn about how many lives an unConstitutional law is supposed to save; and I don't give a tinkers' damn about how safe an unConstitutional law is supposed to make us.

The Patriot Act violates the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that is inexcusable.

LawDog
 
Pulled from: http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/38478

The chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine are toxic and highly combustible
Click to expand...
Oh crap! I have a domestic terrorist's lab under my kitchen sink and in my medicine cabinet! How did that get there?:confused: :mad: :what:

I agree with Lawdog, in that something that violates my civil liberties to protect my civil liberties isnt doing so at all.
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1775
Click to expand...
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...
 
CMichael,

We're done here. :rolleyes:

Quoting, say, Sec. 214 of the USAPATRIOT Act is positively meaningless without also quoting 50 U.S.C. 1842, since Sec. 214 constist of nothing but addenda and insertions to the latter. Quoting Sec. 214 (or any other portion) as though it has some self-contained or self-evident meaning says diddly about the law, but speaks reams about the quoter. If you can't see that, then there is no further point to this discussion.


(As you can plainly see, what I have said is the following:

1) Post #10487 On TFL is to be amended by inserting "including" between "not" and "others".
2) Post #9325 on THR is to be amended by deleting "commended" and inserting "made fun of" after "should be". )
 
LawDog, thank you very much! Logic and the Constitution rule the day. Let us hear it for the tinkers damn and the Constitution, the original "Homeland Security." Lets hear it once again, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional! and can not be allowed to stand!!!


Giant
 
!!!IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN THE TERRORISTS & THE PATRIOT ACT, THEN I'D PREFER THE TERRORISTS, PLEASE!!!
Click to expand...

I second that.

Once again, government breaks our legs, then hands us a crutch and says, "See? If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk."

If it wasn't for the government forcibly disarming us everywhere a weapon can do good, we wouldn't need to be protected from terrorists.

There's always a reason why we need to suspend the Bill of Rights. There are really bad people out there, you see? These are only emergency powers, you see?

What you need to see is that this country is always "at war". Warfare is the ground upon which statism grows fastest. That's why our leaders declare perpetual wars on nouns, wars that cannot be won by definition. There will always be a "terrorist threat", because there will always be terrorism on this planet. The War On Terrorism cannot be won, because it is self-serving and self-perpetuating. It just gave the fed.gov a convenient hobgoblin for dismantling the Bill of Rights at an even faster pace, just when the War On Drugs was losing steam.

Now all they have to do is plant horror visions of nuked American cities in people's heads, and some folks can't click their heels fast enough as they give Caesar his "emergency powers" to save them from the barbarians at the gates. The sad truth is that if a terrorist organization has the money and know-how to nuke a major city, all the Patriot Act legislation won't be able to prevent it. An open society like ours cannot be hermetically sealed; it is a logical, technical and logistical impossibility. Scare the sheep some more, and maybe they'll let you pass Patriot Act II and III, and this country will be turned into a concentration camp...and you still won't be able to stop every determined fanatic with a grudge and a ton of fertilizer.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether you want to face the dangers of this world as a free man, able to control your own fate...or as a prison inmate, disarmed and strip-searched ten times a day, and only safe whenever one of the armed guards is in sight.

Thinking CMichael's line of reasoning through to its logical consequences would be that if giving up some of our rights will make us a little safer, giving up all of our rights will make us totally safe.

Me, I'd rather have my principles shot out from underneath me, than put a bullet into them myself.
 
To whomever it might be that is still listening/reading:

Might I suggest reading the last few (4 or so) posts, and consider the degree of angst toward "government" reflected therein.

Even allowing for a certain number of the tinfoil lined hats crowd, it strikes me that the comments/complaints voiced should not be so easily dismissed. They certainly can be so dismissed, but they shouldn't be.

I submit that a great many people, people in all sorts of places really need to think carefully about the above mentioned angst, the distrust, the anger reflected by these posts, and also realize that many more people might share such thinking, but haven't posted on The Internet.

While they probably won't, I believe that people at the highest levels of government, badly need to think about the above mentioned, and that they need to take corrective action, corrective action most definately NOT leaning in the direction of an ever more authoritarian society, which seems to be the direction that they lean in.

While the foregoing will likely prove unsatisfactory to any number of people, I submit that my suggestions need to be taken seriously and acted on.
 
I submit that a great many people, people in all sorts of places really need to think carefully about the above mentioned angst, the distrust, the anger reflected by these posts, and also realize that many more people might share such thinking, but haven't posted on The Internet.

While they probably won't, I believe that people at the highest levels of government, badly need to think about the above mentioned, and that they need to take corrective action, corrective action most definately NOT leaning in the direction of an ever more authoritarian society, which seems to be the direction that they lean in.
Click to expand...
Comments were directed toward Patriots Act. Let's just add a few other issues to the warning.

Let's just add deindustrialization of the US and illegal immigration and tyranny of trial lawyers and obscene levels of taxation and loss of US sovereignty to foreign bodies and others I can't think of right now.

Never in my life time have I seen as many example of the alienation of the taxpaying class with the ruling class. It seems our rulers are complete oblivious to the concerns, desires, demands, and expectations of those being ruled. Patriots Act is merely a clearly defined example of many such irritants.
 
One point that no one has brought up is that the side against the act should not be playing offence(attacking the act), the other side should be telling us how great it is. Even if this act did not violate the BOR, we should ask why do we need it, why should we give our goverment these powers.

Sure terrorists are bad, but how much of the PA really helps, I am gessing a little, but this thing needs to be debated peice by peice. I really doubt any terroist acts would have been thrawted throughout history had this act or goverment powers existed.

I agree with LawDog, and thank you Tamara for saying that. I was not looking forward to researching that section, this law is so much harder to understand than any I have ever read. If CMichael can translate that into english I would be happy to reply. I did not want to post someone else's research, but I was unable to figure it out. I did not want to have to print tons of pages, and research those changes with other laws down the line.

CMichael and JimP, do you guys even comprehend most of the PA, if so how?
 
CMichael and JimP, do you guys even comprehend most of the PA, if so how?

It really doesn't matter a damn how they interpret it, the lawyers that wrote it did so in a manner that is very confusing and open to interpretation, and it's going to be some arm of the govt that chooses to interpret it in a certain way.
 
Well there they go again. Back to the same ol' mindless rhetoric.

These new arguments are rather interesting. They go something like it doesn't matter what the PA actually says violates the Constitution and is Unconstitution because I say t is, although I have nothing whatsoever to base that on.

Lawdog just about all your points when you look at the actual wording aren't true.

You said that the Feds can say anything and the judge must grant a warrant. That is incorrect. The Feds must show to the judge that what they want to seize is necessary for an ongoing investigation.

Then you said that that if the Feds seize something that they need to tell the target in a reasonable time. And that can be delayed.

That is not what the law said either. The Feds need to tell the target immediately. But "for good cause shown" to a judge it can be delayed until a reasonable time or longer. In any case they must sway a judge to see their point of view.

I guess the facts really mean nothing. You are probably going to hate the PA because you have invested so many months if not years hating it. It probably doesn't matter that the PA doesn't say what you think it says

And it is in English. Just read what it says. Not what you want it to say so it can support your beliefs.
 
!!!IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN THE TERRORISTS & THE PATRIOT ACT, THEN I'D PREFER THE TERRORISTS, PLEASE!!!
Click to expand...

If AlGore became Prez I'm sure you would have gotten your wish. Fortunately, he was defeated.
 
!!!IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN THE TERRORISTS & THE PATRIOT ACT, THEN I'D PREFER THE TERRORISTS, PLEASE!!!
Click to expand...
Hmmm. This sort of reminds me of the qoute from radical environmentalists who say they would gladly return society to the stone age to protect mother earth. Of course, they make these statements from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices with their VW van sitting outside on a paved parking lot while eating pasteurized cheese and tofu. Point being, it is easy to be cavalier about a WMD attack knowing that in all probability it won't happen precisely because there are men and women working behind the scenes to prevent it. The PA should be amended, not scrapped.
 
Here we go again, waving the scary terrorist boogeyman.

Hey, if it makes you feel safe to surrender your civil liberties to the benevolent federal masters, don't let me stop you. But don't assume for one second that your need to feel safe entitles you to surrender my civil liberties in the process via mobocracy.

The Bill of Rights is ironclad, and makes no exemptions for "really scary threats". It is majority-proof, and all the armed federal lackeys in the world can't make the Patriot Act constitutional. The mob can pass it into law, and the mob can enforce it, but all the badges and guns in the world can make it lawful. It directly violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution, and it is thereby null and void. It doesn't matter whether the majority applauds it, condones it, supports it, and enforces it.

It doesn't matter how many unthinking goose-steppers raise their right arms in its support and ask for more, it violates the supreme law of the land. End of story.
 
And how exactly does it violate the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment? How exactly does it violate the Bill of Rights?
 
It's been laid out to you in great detail, even though you've been admant in taking the "odie, odie, odie" approach, fingers in ears and all.

But I'll recap it for you:

The Patriot Act...

* Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee, the provision allowing the right to peaceably assemble, and the provision allowing the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

* Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized." The Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house. Under the act they are not required to even tell you why.

* Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people to be kept in prison for life without even a trial.

* Violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to a speedy and public trial. Now you may get no trial at all, ever.

* Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

* Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without conviction).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
ACLU v Patriot Act. Lawsuit filed.
Replies
23
Views
865
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
from 22 August Reason Magazine, on-line edition
Replies
2
Views
267
alan
A
C
  • Locked
Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
sanchezero
S
W
  • Locked
Sen. Sensenbrenner opposes expanded Patriots Act
Replies
3
Views
397
Geech
G
W
  • Locked
City Criminalizes Patriot Act
Replies
5
Views
544
Delmar
D
Back
Top