Print 57 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on Sep 12 at 11:53 AM

The controversial aspect of the USA Patriot Act has once again been struck down

A federal judge struck down the controversial National Security Letter (NSL) provision of the revised USA Patriot Act, with Federal District Judge Victor Marrera ruling it "unconstitutional." A favorite tool of the FBI, NSLs were found to violate the principle of seperation of powers and the First Amendment.

National Security Letters are a form of subpoena that allows the FBI or other government agencies to gather data from companies or individuals in secret and without court approval. Oftentimes ISPs find themselves targetted and are forced to turn over phone records, web surfing histories, or e-mail. However, the powers of NSLs have also been used against financial, credit, or even library records. NSL recipients are bound under a gag order and forbidden from discussing any aspect of the NSL to anyone, including close family or friends.

Government orders require judicial oversight, wrote Judge Marrera: "as this decision recognizes, courts have a constitutionally mandated role to play when national security policies infringe on First Amendment rights. A statute that allows the FBI to silence people without meaningful judicial oversight is unconstitutional." In a 106-page ruling, Juedge Marrero called the NSL "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."

Although only part of the NSL provision was found to be unconstitutional, all of it was struck down as Judge Marrera found the offending parts to be inseperable from the rest of the law.

"The courts play an important role in balancing the requirements of national security against the constitutional protections that safeguard our basic freedoms and liberties," said New York Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Arthur Eisenburg. "We are delighted that the court fulfilled that important function in this case."

While the FBI has had the power to issue NSLs for years, the number of national security letters issued has risen tremendously since the expansion of its abilities as enacted in the USA Patriot Act, culminating with 19,000 NSLs issued in 2005 seeking over 47,000 various pieces of information, sent mostly to telecommunications and ISPs. In an internal audit, conducted by the FBI against approximately 10% of all NSLs issues from 2002 to 2007, it was discovered that these requests violated agency rules or federal law over 1,000 times. Actual numbers are sketchy, however, as the FBI has consistently underreported NSL statistics. A report issued by the Justice Department's Inspector General puts the number of NSLs issued between 2003 to 2005 at over 143,000.

The NSL provision of the Patriot Act was originally struck down in a 2004 ruling also issued by Judge Marrera as part of Doe v. Gonzales, who noted that "democracy abhors undue secrecy." The case, which was filed on behalf of an anonymous ISP that had been served with an NSL, was later appealed by the government -- however the law was changed before the court could issue a decision.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Thank God.
By exdeath on 9/6/2007 5:56:07 PM , Rating: 3
I'm waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment myself.

If they rule against they people and restrict power of arms to the state, they know they will never get away with enforcing it and face possible violent resistance and backlash. If they rule that it's indeed an individual right to bear any implement of the soldier as it's written, government will lose in terms of power over the people and unconstitutional bans all the way back to 1934 being
revoked and overturned.

In typical political style, they don't want to touch it either way.

RE: Thank God.
By Etsp on 9/6/2007 6:25:36 PM , Rating: 5
Regardless of what the constitution says, I feel there are just some firearms that normal citizens do not need to have.

I fully feel that guns can reduce violent crime greatly, and are a great asset in personal protection, but there is no reason for someone to own a fully automatic weapon for any reason. I understand there are many gun enthusiasts that would like to own these weapons for personal pleasure, but the only legitimate function of these kinds of weapons is to enable one person to inflict as much harm as possible.

Handguns are one thing, but machine guns, like the tommy gun that was commonly used by gangsters during that era, should not be placed into civilian hands.

Hunting rifles and shotguns(as long as they aren't in the hands of the Vice President =P) should be allowed as well, as they also serve a direct purpose that does not involve the injury or death of innocent civilians.(unless the exception I mentioned earlier isn't followed)

RE: Thank God.
By whalenapp81 on 9/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Thank God.
By Etsp on 9/6/2007 6:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Did you decide to post after only reading the first sentence of my comment? I am defending gun ownership. Just not uncontrolled gun ownership.

RE: Thank God.
By mars777 on 9/7/2007 5:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
What happened in the UK was:

- Many people had guns
- Guns were banned
- Along time many people didn't have any more guns
- (small) Criminals still had those guns
- Criminals felt having more power because of that
- Crime has risen

Big criminals will allways have guns even if they are banned.

We should see what will be the UK like in 20 years...

RE: Thank God.
By chick0n on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Thank God.
By Etsp on 9/7/2007 10:22:26 AM , Rating: 1
I decided not to use VA tech as an example, for the simple fact that I didn't want to point at an isolated incident and say "see, this proves my point"

But I will say this: VA Tech did not allow registered gun owners from bringing their weapons on campus. That didn't stop Cho, but it certainly prevented people from being able to defend themselves against him.

So my point is,
yep yep, look at what happen to VA tech ?

Yes, please look at what happened there, when the attacker was armed but the victims were not permitted to be.

RE: Thank God.
By rsmech on 9/6/2007 10:09:01 PM , Rating: 3
Regardless of what the constitution says, I feel

You said it. The Constitution doesn't care how you feel about what I choose to do personally on my own property with my own possessions in my own privacy.

RE: Thank God.
By wetwareinterface on 9/7/2007 1:50:37 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with your argument is that the second amendment wasn't written to protect your right to bear arms against home intruders or to go hunting. It specifically states that your right to bear arms is a protection against a government that wants to remove your liberties by force. And if the army comes marching down my street with M16-a1 assault rifles I want to be able to use the same.

Do I even own a gun right now?
If I feel the breeze blowing the wrong way towards a tyrannical state can I buy the right kind of gun now?

You can take your lame argument against assault rifles and thnk about something. The whole recent assault rifle ban started with one idiot walking onto a school playground in Stockton, CA with an AK-47. He killed several kids and wounded several others. Now imagine him on that same playground with a 12 gauge shotgun. He wouldn't have missed as many times as he did with that AK due to recoil. The death toll would have been much higher if he had used a shotgun cause you don't have to be an expert shot or know to use a 3 round burst to be effective. If you're shot by a shotgun or hunting rifle or AK-47 problem is you're just as dead in any of the three situations. With the hunting rifle or shotgun your chances of being hit immediately are higher than with an assault rifle. The only real diference with an assault rifle is you get to have a better second chance of a hit if you miss your first shot. That's it, no less or more deadly, just a better second chance hit ratio.

The fact that assault rifles are favored by citizens easily impressed with firepower and the natural attraction of mentally sick people and criminals in this catagory doesn't mean that the assault rifles themselves are at fault. If aliens or God suddenly vaporized every assault rifle these same people would still be killing others only with shotguns and handguns only.

The appeal of the assault rifle to those people who are sick in the head or criminal is no reason to ban it for those that would own one responsibly. Anymore than a ban on video cameras would be constitutional to avoid peeping toms and privacy violations.

RE: Thank God.
By Etsp on 9/7/2007 2:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
Assault rifles are merely a tool. A tool designed specifically to kill people. In the hands of someone without proper training, it is very dangerous, and so only people who are qualified to own them should. The same way a Train is a tool that is designed for something completely different, but in the hands of someone who should not be in control of it, it can be quite destructive. There is a proper time and place for everything.

Gun control should be done on a state level, never a federal level. Because of how our system works, if there is ever a need to take arms against a government, including our own, the state would decide whether or not to repeal gun control laws on the basis of necessity. The local government is composed of local officials acting on the behalf of the local people. There are of course, no absolutes that all state officials are acting on the behalf of the people...quite the contrary in fact. However, the majority of elected officials in the local government make their decisions based on the wants or needs of the local people. And thats the beauty and the pitfall of democracy. The majority decides what is right, even if they are wrong.

And your argument of shotgun's being more deadly than assault rifles has little basis in reality. First, the recoil of most shotguns is greater than the recoil of most assault rifles, and can not be fired as fast. He may have had more accuracy, but he would have fired many, many less times. Second, most shotguns do not utilize fast reloading clips unless it was designed for combat purposes, each shell must be loaded manually. Third, the majority of shotguns available to the public hold less than 10 rounds. Fourth, shotguns aren't nearly as lethal as rifles at longer ranges. And fifth,
With the hunting rifle or shotgun your chances of being hit immediately are higher than with an assault rifle.

Are you listening to yourself? Why would a weapon designed to kill people be LESS EFFECTIVE then the ones designed for hunting, where in most cases, you are only aiming for one target at a time, instead a group of targets.

RE: Thank God.
By rdeegvainl on 9/7/2007 5:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yes assault rifles are a tool. A tool designed specifically to kill people. But They are a tool protected by the Second Ammendment. The purpose of the second ammendment was for the people to have the power to stand up to the government when it crosses the line. For that to be effective, against a trained military, we should not restrict assault rifles from the very reason we have the second ammendment. To take guns out of the situation, it would be akin to saying that citizens are allowed to have daggers and knives to protect themselves from the government, when the government soldiers have swords and spears.
The ammendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does not make allowances for the effectiveness of the weapon being too great.

RE: Thank God.
By Etsp on 9/7/2007 10:31:38 AM , Rating: 3
What line are you referring to exactly that the government would cross? Like, oh, I don't know, maybe taking away our constitutional rights? Wow, the second amendment would be the first one out the window. And the states would not stand for it. We currently have an all volunteer military, and I believe that in the event that the citizens need to take arms against the government, the soldiers would choose defend their homes rather than the federal government.

During the times we are not at war with our own government, these kinds of things aren't needed in the hands of Joe Public.
"A well regulated Militia"
In the hands of a well regulated militia is a completely different story however...

RE: Thank God.
By rdeegvainl on 9/8/2007 1:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
The line they cross when the people feel they have to fight back.
And during the times we are not at war, we should still protect our right to bear arms, cause if they take them away while not at war, then are they magically gonna be available when problems do come about? no.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See the line says that because of the militia being necessary, the PEOPLE have the right to bear Arms, not just those in the militia.

RE: Thank God.
By JonnyDough on 9/12/2007 11:40:23 AM , Rating: 1
Our military is not voluntary. The soldiers get paid, and they are targeted with a LOT of advertising to get them to sign up. For many it is a just a way out of financial trouble. They choose to sign up, yes, but once they are in - they are in. There is no easy way of getting out without dishonorable discharge (which is a very bad option) or without serving your time. Serving your time makes it sound a little like prison doesn't it? Last I checked, prison wasn't voluntary either, but does usually depend on a choice someone makes. If you call a bad decision volunteering then I guess women volunteer to get beat up when they go on that first date with a seemingly nice guy who turns out to be violent. Most signing up for the military don't realize that they're doing the devil's bidding, or they're just too much in a financial pickle to care.

RE: Thank God.
By mindless1 on 9/7/2007 8:29:57 AM , Rating: 2
I've seen people injured by screwdrivers, shall we outlaw those too?

How about knives?

AFAIK, none of these assault rifle toting madmen are going to prevent you from leaving the US if you can't stand the freedoms it provides to it's citizens. Just go, find a new place to live. Maybe you'll find that place or maybe you'll find that the individual freedoms some countries offer are more important than the few times there is a price to pay for that freedom.

RE: Thank God.
By hockyis1 on 9/7/2007 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
I would rather outlaw assault weapons and make the gang-bangers in South Central LA do drivebys with knives, rope, and matches however.

RE: Thank God.
By ZmaxDP on 9/7/2007 8:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
If you outlaw assault rifles (already done) that won't stop gang bangers from using them for drive-bys anymore than outlawing drugs (already done)would prevent them from selling or using them...

RE: Thank God.
By JonnyDough on 9/12/2007 11:41:54 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed. Outlawing marijuana hasn't stopped half of America from becoming potheads either.

RE: Thank God.
By Pythias on 9/7/2007 5:22:25 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree. If the army can use full-auto, so can I. One of the reasons we have the right to bear arms is to insure that in the invent that the government too pushy, we can push back.

Sadly, the ultimate resolution is always force. Fear the government that fears your guns, as they say.

RE: Thank God.
By hockyis1 on 9/7/2007 8:50:03 AM , Rating: 2
"If the Army can use full-auto, so can I"...

Are you kidding me. Where does that argument end? Rocket launchers? Landmines? Hand grenades? Bombs?

You say you need this so that you can "push back the government" if they come after you. Do YOU really think any weapon you have will hold back the Army or Marines IF, and I say IF in theory they really came after you? When was the last time you got into a gun fight with a guy that has bigger, better, more powerful and accurate weapons.

Just because the government has use of highly sophisticated and powerful weapons, DOES NOT mean joe-shmoe should use the same.

I can't stand the use of the quote "A man who gives up his freedom for security, doesn't deserve either" (I'm paraphrasing). People give up freedoms just by being citizens of the US. What's freedom if you live in fear?

I'm no philosopher, but the guy who said that is an idiot, and didn't live in today's world....

RE: Thank God.
By rdeegvainl on 9/7/2007 9:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
Being one of these Marines, my loyalties lie not in my government, but the people. If the government needs to be pushed back, I won't go after the people who are pushing, and do you realize how many people have been in the military that no longer are? They also have the training, if not better now that the standards have been dropping over the years. And you can bet in an instant that if the government started using it's military against the public, they would have a recruitment problem that far surpasses anything we have seen yet, not to mention the mass amounts that go AWOL or UA.
Oh and the whole point of the second amendment is to allow the people to have weapons on par with a military force, especially America's.
I say if you vote, you should be required to own a weapon, and take the proper courses to take care of it, use it correctly. This country was founded by people who knew exactly what is was like to have an oppressive government over them, and took precautions to make sure that the future generations would be able to overthrow that kind of government should it rear its head again.

RE: Thank God.
By JonnyDough on 9/12/2007 11:49:36 AM , Rating: 1
This brings up the point that I've been that our military creation policy needs to be revised. The military should consist of men and women that volunteer and are not paid. These men and women can then once again have HONOR, and be revered as HEROES. If the military was volunteer, our taxes would be cut in more than half. It would also mean that we don't go about policing the world and foreign countries might regain respect for us and LEAVE US ALONE, instead of terrorizing us. Which would also save money and headache and heartache. Why does America insist on picking up guns? When will we understand that fighting only leads to pain, death, and misery? If we weren't paying to stretch our influences all over earth we would be so rich in this country...and have our fathers at home helping to raise boys who may ultimately end up in prison. Fewer young kids in prison? Yep. Lower taxes. Not only do taxpayers not have to pay for their prisoning, but those kids would be out in the world creating revenue for the government instead of costing the government (Us) money. Maybe it's time that we rethought our militant stance in the world, and got our F'ing heads screwed on straight. Now is the time that we NEED assault rifles here at home, we need to get united behind the idea that our foreign policy BLOWS, and we need to DEMAND change because it's not going to happen otherwise.

RE: Thank God.
By JonnyDough on 9/12/2007 11:51:50 AM , Rating: 1
In addition, any man or woman that serves some time in the military and is hailed as a brave hero would also be appreciated here in the homeland, so the job is not "without payment" as it would lead to job placement opportunities by a grateful nation. This is how our government used to operate, and it worked very well if I recall.

RE: Thank God.
By JonnyDough on 9/12/2007 11:53:57 AM , Rating: 1
One more thing, I am not against being taxed for veteran assistance, and am quite for it. I just don't think that the government should be able to provide such incentives coupled with mass advertising to lure people into doing it's bidding. They're not promoting job opportunities on my tv, they're promoting war.

RE: Thank God.
By mindless1 on 9/7/2007 8:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
OK, and then you won't mind giving up the things you want because someone else feels you "dont need to have", too.

Sorry but that's the opposite of freedom.

RE: Thank God.
By Ringold on 9/6/2007 7:20:15 PM , Rating: 1
No, what I can't wait for is some guy who cares a little too much to use it in the way the founding fathers would be proud of.

By that I mean some man, who owns his own property and is no direct burden to any other man, who is told he must yield his property to the federal or local government on the terms set by the federal or local government due expressly to the desires of the federal or local government.

At which point he then fortifies as best as he can his property and goes out in a blaze of glory. Imminent domain abuse might actually then get a little media attenion..

RE: Thank God.
By Treckin on 9/6/2007 7:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, there were to many inaccuracies in your post concerning both US history and general political science to bother correcting...
Simply because John Locke wrote it does not make it true.

IT EMINENT DOMAIN! Not "imminent domain", although that usage is arguably laughable for the simple pun.

This is the natural course for any liberal democratic society.. a give and take between liberty and governmental power, eventually and necessarily leading towards the democratic ideal - ie. two steps forward, one step back.

And to those complaining of the convoluted bureaucratic process we call our government, realize that the government is DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY to run slowly. Hasty actions make for rash decisions. When you speak of national or international policy, it is inarguably always true to favor inaction over wrongful action, no matter the cost.

Please just attempt to view government through some lens of humility if you can, otherwise just keep the kiddie school Polisci off the message boards...

RE: Thank God.
By mAdMaLuDaWg on 9/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Thank God.
By xeltor on 9/7/2007 1:47:37 AM , Rating: 1
The word liberal comes from the word liberty (freedom). Liberal government means balanced or in the middle of the political spectrum. socialism is on the far left so liberal democratic society (moderate democratic society) makes a fuck load more sense than liberal socialistic society (moderate left wing society) does.

RE: Thank God.
By Martin Blank on 9/6/2007 10:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
he must yield his property to the federal or local government on the terms set by the federal or local government due expressly to the desires of the federal or local government.

The last phrase of the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." A public benefit must be stated, and in many areas (perhaps most, after the most recent major Supreme Court ruling over it) the benefit must be narrowly defined within terms of schools, hospitals, roadways, etc.

One of the major reasons that public works projects are so expensive is the cost of eminent domain. In Southern California, building a new freeway costs approximately $1 billion per mile because eminent domain costs require compensating the land and building owners according to fair market value. Many other areas see costs of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars added to projects because of this requirement.

There are occasional cases where people get the short end of the stick, but the courts usually err on the side of caution and award more liberal amounts.

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki