Reply
Thu 30 Sep, 2004 01:49 am
Judge KOs Portion Of Patriot Act
Quote:(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-Sept. 11 law enforcement powers.
"Today's ruling is a wholesale refutation of excessive government secrecy and unchecked executive power," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer.
Federal 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 Sept. 11 cases will challenge the judiciary to do Sept. 11 justice, to rise to the moment with wisdom equal to the task, its judgments worthy of the large dimensions that define the best Sept. 11 brought out of the rest of American society."
Article
Judge sets aside part of Patriot Act
Police surveillance provisions called unconstitutional
WASHINGTON — A federal judge Wednesday ruled that key police surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero said that national security letters — which allow the FBI to demand that certain businesses hand over customer records without a judge's approval and without telling anyone — violate the First and the Fourth amendments.
In a 122-page ruling, Marrero said that personal security was equally as important as national security. “Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good,” he wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union had filed the suit challenging the national security letters on behalf of an Internet firm referred to only as John Doe. The group hailed Wednesday's decision.
“It's a stunning victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department,” said Anthony Romero, ACLU executive director.
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the decision was being reviewed.
National security letters are among the more disputed provisions of the Patriot Act, which provided law enforcement with sweeping new police and surveillance powers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The government had been able to seek communications records from companies including Internet service providers and telephone companies without a judge's permission since 1996. The Patriot Act expanded those powers.
Critics were troubled by the law's broad gag order, which barred the recipient of a national security letter from telling anyone he had received it.
National security letters are so secretive that the ACLU was forced to keep its lawsuit under wraps at first. The Justice Department refused to provide any data on how frequently national security letters were used.
Marrero's ruling will not take effect immediately, allowing the government time to appeal.
This is the second time a federal court has held that a part of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution. A federal court judge in Los Angeles held that a part of the law, which makes it a crime to provide material support to terrorists in the form of assistance or advice, was overly broad. The government is appealing that decision.
Hey Deb, if the US Supreme Court eventually rules for the Feds on this, are you going to title your post "Court proves Patriot Act constitutional?"
Decision
In striking down the gag provision, the court said: "Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction."
The decision can be accessed at the ACLU website:
Decision in ACLU v. Ashcroft
Status
A Lone Voice wrote:Hey Deb, if the US Supreme Court eventually rules for the Feds on this, are you going to title your post "
Court proves Patriot Act constitutional?"
The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, has struck down Section 505 of the law [Patriot Act] on the grounds that it violates free speech rights under the First Amendment as well as the right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment. Section 505 of the Patriot Act has been judicially declared to be unconstitutional.
I don't understand your query. A court doesn't prove anything.
The Justice Department may appeal or it may not appeal this District Court decision. If the Justice Department appeals, the Justice Department will argue that the District Court's decision is clearly erroneous. The ACLU will argue that the District Court's decision is correct. A court does not prove anything. Courts are required to be NEUTRAL decisionmakers. Therefore, I would NEVER entitle a post in the manner you suggested.
Re: Decision
Debra_Law wrote:In striking down the gag provision, the court said: "Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction."
The decision can be accessed at the ACLU website:
Decision in ACLU v. Ashcroft
OK. But if the Supreme Court rules in opposition and states that "Under the mantel of national security, the government should be allowed to keep secret those acts which might endanger the very fabric of American security if allowed to fall into the hands of those who would destroy it"?
My point was
your spin on this. Not to be unkind, but this case was
not decided in its entirety today.
And I happen to agree with you in that the judge ruled the way I hope this eventually goes.......
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace