I can't believe there isn't a thread about this yet, Patriot Act > *

[kinggovernor]

ACLU Drops Patriot Act Challenge

By JIM IRWIN
The Associated Press
Friday, October 27, 2006; 10:14 PM

DETROIT -- The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday dropped a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act.

The ACLU said it was withdrawing the lawsuit filed more than three years ago because of "improvements to the law." The Justice Department argued last month that amendments approved by Congress in March 2006 had corrected any constitutional flaws in the Patriot Act.

"While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU in New York, said in a written statement.

The lawsuit, filed in July 2003 on behalf of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor and five other nonprofit groups, was the first legal challenge to Section 215, the part of the Patriot Act that lets federal agents obtain such things as library records and medical information.

The ACLU said the revisions allow people receiving demands for records to consult with a lawyer and challenge the demands in court.

The Justice Department, which first asked that the lawsuit be dismissed in December 2003, said it was pleased by the ACLU's action, which was contained in a one-paragraph notice filed with U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood in Detroit.

"We ... reiterate that the Patriot Act is a legitimate and important tool that has better helped law enforcement fight terrorism while simultaneously protecting our valued civil liberties," Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said.

The ACLU argued that Section 215, which allows the FBI access to any "tangible things" such as books and documents through an order from a secret court, does not require investigators to show probable cause. It asked that the Justice Department be barred from using the provision.

Hood ruled on Oct. 3 that the ACLU's clients had shown they were harmed by the anti-terrorism law adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and that the lawsuit could proceed. But the ruling came after the law had been amended, prompting the ACLU to drop its case.

The ACLU said it would continue to monitor how the government applied Section 215 and would remain ready to defend any individual, business or organization receiving demands for information under the provision.

The group also said it is continuing its legal fight against a more frequently used provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes national security letters. Such letters allow the executive branch of government to obtain records about people in terrorism and espionage investigations without a judge's approval or a grand jury subpoena.
© 2006 The Associated Press

I can't believe the ACLU went without a fight, maybe they are going to focus on 2nd amendment right cases now

[JaJae]

Excellent post. I think that pretty much trumps any notion that the Patriot act is unconstitutional.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Excellent post. I think that pretty much trumps any notion that the Patriot act is unconstitutional.

and anyone who claims that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional should be bitchslapped

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Excellent post. I think that pretty much trumps any notion that the Patriot act is unconstitutional.

That's speculation

There simply have been no REPORTED and ACTIONABLE incidents of them using certain provisions either at all, or abusing the ones that are open for abuse

If the Patriot Act was used by the Feds that ended up convincting someone...but they didn't use that particular evidence in trial...its unreported

An extreme example would be, they overtly surveiled(sp?) everyone in your neighborhood, and then wait until they hear someone talking about doing something illegal, then they happen to "be there" when the conduct happens, thus all the evidence is from on the ground, no patriot act nonsense required...and the person sent to prison would just think he was unlucky

Also, you have to take into account people who were abused but do not want to come forth because the spotlight would be too embarrasing...many people who are intelligent enough to come to the ACLU also know there could be a big headline "DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE, EX-ROOM MATE OF PATRIOT CHALLENGER STATES THEY BOTH LOOKED AT ANIMAL PORN TOGETHER"

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's speculation

There simply have been no REPORTED and ACTIONABLE incidents of them using certain provisions either at all, or abusing the ones that are open for abuse

If the Patriot Act was used by the Feds that ended up convincting someone...but they didn't use that particular evidence in trial...its unreported

An extreme example would be, they overtly surveiled(sp?) everyone in your neighborhood, and then wait until they hear someone talking about doing something illegal, then they happen to "be there" when the conduct happens, thus all the evidence is from on the ground, no patriot act nonsense required...and the person sent to prison would just think he was unlucky

Also, you have to take into account people who were abused but do not want to come forth because the spotlight would be too embarrasing...many people who are intelligent enough to come to the ACLU also know there could be a big headline "DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE, EX-ROOM MATE OF PATRIOT CHALLENGER STATES THEY BOTH LOOKED AT ANIMAL PORN TOGETHER"

This has nothing to do with individual cases. It has everything to do with if the bill itself presents anything unconstitutional. The ACLU, one of it's biggest critics, says it doesn't.

If someone is "abused" by following the Patriot Act, that "abuse" is constitutional.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This has nothing to do with individual cases. It has everything to do with if the bill itself presents anything unconstitutional. The ACLU, one of it's biggest critics, says it doesn't.

If someone is "abused" by following the Patriot Act, that "abuse" is constitutional.

If your case is "the PA is not blatantly unconstitutional" I would have to agree with you...if it was atleast ONE federal court would have suspended the entire bill

If the ACLU goes "well the library situation..." and can cite no examples of abuse, and the government goes "there is a precedent of giving the executive more powers during a war, and this is only ever used to stop the most severe plots from being formed inside the US and is always part of...blah blah"

The government has an excellent case, remember its not like "The patriot act violates a principle of the constitution, therefor it is automatically unconstitutional" its more like "Does this act violate the constitution in a way that outweighs the enormous benefits to society?"

the government can point to a spotless track record, a precedent of giving emergency powers, and rest right there

I believe the Patriot Act in unconstitutional, that being said, I do not believe the PA is "BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL", meaning that if a judge rules in favor of it, and people vote for it, I do not think they are being unconstitutional or whatever crap someone would say if someone was thoroughly abusing the constitution

[alan1000]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I can't believe the ACLU went without a fight, maybe they are going to focus on 2nd amendment right cases now

There is hope for the ACLU!

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If your case is "the PA is not blatantly unconstitutional" I would have to agree with you...if it was atleast ONE federal court would have suspended the entire bill

If the ACLU goes "well the library situation..." and can cite no examples of abuse, and the government goes "there is a precedent of giving the executive more powers during a war, and this is only ever used to stop the most severe plots from being formed inside the US and is always part of...blah blah"

The government has an excellent case, remember its not like "The patriot act violates a principle of the constitution, therefor it is automatically unconstitutional" its more like "Does this act violate the constitution in a way that outweighs the enormous benefits to society?"

the government can point to a spotless track record, a precedent of giving emergency powers, and rest right there

I believe the Patriot Act in unconstitutional, that being said, I do not believe the PA is "BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL", meaning that if a judge rules in favor of it, and people vote for it, I do not think they are being unconstitutional or whatever crap someone would say if someone was thoroughly abusing the constitution

judical review is sometimes a great thing, I have been meaning to make a thread about that by the way.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This has nothing to do with individual cases. It has everything to do with if the bill itself presents anything unconstitutional. The ACLU, one of it's biggest critics, says it doesn't.

If someone is "abused" by following the Patriot Act, that "abuse" is constitutional.

Talk about your "quiet" news story! I read it here first!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I believe the Patriot Act in unconstitutional, that being said, I do not believe the PA is "BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL", meaning that if a judge rules in favor of it, and people vote for it, I do not think they are being unconstitutional or whatever crap someone would say if someone was thoroughly abusing the constitution

Well I am glad you clarified your position. Now for the numerous others who screamed about how the Bush Administration was raping the constitution....

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Well I am glad you clarified your position. Now for the numerous others who screamed about how the Bush Administration was raping the constitution....

The new version of the patriot act is one of the minor offenses of the Bush Administration when you compare it to the rest of the shit they've done.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Well I am glad you clarified your position. Now for the numerous others who screamed about how the Bush Administration was raping the constitution....

They are by making terrible precedents, why I don't have the time (nor the inclination, i mean we got the election in a week!) they are making rules that could easily be twisted to hurt every american

my prime example are militia groups out west, the anti-government ones who train as paramilitaries. Using logic Bush has used 2001-2006, the next president (say Hillary) could declare them terrorists (some of them are, see McVeigh) and round up hundreds of people and detain them, and torture them, then using wiretap technology, find all the people they are talking to, which would almost certainly be gun-rights groups, declare them terrorists as well, and conduct a massive campaign conducted by the US federal military to confiscate every gun in America, if violence breaks out, martial law is put into effect, news media is frozen, and silently, house by house, america is disarmed

now, thats a nightmare scenario for many of you, but again we are setting the precedent for something like that to happen

[SICKGUY]

how many of you guys have actually "read" the patriot act?

question...

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

does this mean you are not liable for being a snitch? if a guy at work has a copy of the communist manifesto, could i snitch on him? tell the fbi that im positive he is a terrorist. with the patriot act and the new terror bill...im sure i could get rid of that jerk forever!

unless all of you conservatives are legal experts, how the f*** can you honestly read the patriot act and pretend to know its absolutely 100% in the best interest of all americans?

[SICKGUY]

do all bills make this many references to other sections of the bill? in order to read this, you would need a reference copy and a reading copy, yeesh!

[ballz2wallz]

To anyone who thinks the Bush admin has 'taken away our rights'...


...



...

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

To anyone who thinks the Bush admin has 'taken away our rights'...


...



...

So you think you haven't lost any liberty under the current administration?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So you think you haven't lost any liberty under the current administration?

No. I have not.

Well, unless you want to count the eminent domain issue, but that was a liberal judge that did that, not the Bush admin.

Everything that people assume Bush has done isn't new; the government has been doing it long before Bush took office. The only reason he's getting reamed or it is because it's only been now made public, and blamed on him by the uneducated and uninformed.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No. I have not.

Well, unless you want to count the eminent domain issue, but that was a liberal judge that did that, not the Bush admin.

Everything that people assume Bush has done isn't new; the government has been doing it long before Bush took office. The only reason he's getting reamed or it is because it's only been now made public, and blamed on him by the uneducated and uninformed.

So let me get this straight....the loss of habeas corpus doesn't affect you, but eminent domain does?

So you have actually had property taken from you for the public good under eminent domain, or it affects you because it could happen to you?


And nice slam on people who oppose what he has done. They are either uninformend or uneducated.
I can't beleive you allow yourself to walk among us mere mortals.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So let me get this straight....the loss of habeas corpus doesn't affect you, but eminent domain does?

And you think this is new? *sigh* (example of uninformed)

Allow me to