backtop


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 CollegeTechGuy on 9/7/2007 9:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'll tell you why its taken this long for Judges to openly oppose it. Politics...Judges get scared of influential powers of the President. Since opposing anything related to the Patriot Act is basically opposing Bush, they fear for repercussions. However, since Bush is on his way out the door, no one is scared of anything happening to them.

...Thats my opinion anyways.


RE: Thank God.
By Treckin on 9/7/2007 11:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
Judicial appointments and salaries are fixed for life (although salaries may increase). The entire point of the judicial branch is to assure coequal status. Members of the judiciary are not to be threatened overtly or covertly -- check westlaw or lexus nexus for any number of thousands of cases upholding the freedom of the court as integral to the constitutionally implied separation of powers.

This was not a political decision, but rather one not made in a state of national fear, disinformation, and rampant sensationalist nationalism, i.e. late 2001-2003.

The whole point of the governmental system which we have is to slow the natural impulsiveness of the human animal. The bureaucracy exists for the protection of the people. However, there are statutory clauses which allow the pace to increase exponentially in times of crises. Unfortunately, that happens to be the time when we need to move most carefully and in a calculating, rational manner, and not rashly moving mountains out of fear or anger. The government, in a republican democracy, serves to remove from the commonwealth those qualities which, in their natural state, are harmful to our fellows. Essentially, government acts to remove those defects of character which are decidedly human.

You will see a substantial amount of like court decisions passed down in the coming years overthrowing fear and anger based legislation which was passed during our current fear mongering executives reign.
This is the way the government was designed to act...


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











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki