My crystal ball keeps coming up with 3 words.

Tragic...
Boating...
Accident...

Forget for the moment the debate on whether this ruling is good or bad, whether there is or isn't an invasion of privacy of innocent people...

This is another example of how overly-powerful judges are.

(mind you, I don't have a better solution)

One single, appointed person can over-rule something decided upon by 50 elected congressmen, 435 elected representatives, and an elected president.

One person with their own agendas, their own belief systems, their own ideologies, can decide policy or at least can greatly change what the country, through their elected officials decided upon.

That'd be one judge and hundreds of thousands of appalled voters.

He didn't make this up out of whole cloth, he STUDIED the constitution and found this act in violation of that document, that document which our laws are based upon. This is the system of checks and balances that have been put in place because over the course of history, many people with enough power can do a lot of damage, willingly, knowingly or not, due to their own lack of knowledge of the law, or the far reaching effects of their decisions.

In fact, this judge has stayed his own ruling so that the legislature can appeal, i.e., provide a good argument why he may be wrong and their decision correct. He, indeed, is much more fair, rational and informed than that group you mention.

Remember that the judge only ruled that a part of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Giving the legislature an opportunity to see the error of its ways makes him a good guy in my book. I have just retired from the military and when I joined it was more like "My way or the hiway" type of mentality, it was a few courageous people who changed that and made us a better team by questioning ways things were done and making them better. When I left the Coast Guard was better than when I started. Not because of me but because of strong minded people who knew we could be a better service, a better team. That is what this reminds me of.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

• The only part found unconstitutional was the parts where the company supplying the government with information was not allowed to discuss the information requested by the government with anyone, including their own attorneys.
Doesn't seam to me that that this ruling is going to change much of the patriot act.

• The German terrorists that were just nabbed making bombs were caught by our intelligence monitoring phone calls. In essence, the "Patriot Act" potentially helped save many innocent lives.

I'm still waiting from someone to tell me how the "Patriot Act" has had a direct negative affect on them, and not just give a "hypothetical".

I will admit though, the damn thing was written pretty fast, has a whole lot of pages, and I haven't read it.

Good points, Dolly and Larky. I have to agree, I found his ruling to be just and fair. I admire him for standing up to a majority and point out errors.

Good judge - I like hearing stories like this. Now all we need is some iron-fisted judges in our young offenders courtrooms here and we're set.

She's right you know.

That's not the only part. Requiring the companies to provide the information without proof (ever) of a reason behind the request. Also known as "due process". The judge does not believe that this information has to be provided immediately, but it does have to be provided eventually (to the court, not the companies) to prove that the individual(s) are actually a security risk (and not say, just an anti-war protester).

The "eavesdropping" (for lack of a better term) that was used to catch those terrorists has been in place since long before the Patriot Act. In fact it was in place prior to 9/11 and the NSA had gathered information prior to 9/11 that terrorists were planning something major utilizing US commercial aircraft. They passed this information on to the White House and that same information was ignored, or deemed to be a non-emergent threat.

The "eavesdropping" didn't need to be intensified, the due process didn't need to be dissolved; all that was needed was for the information to be paid attention to when it was brought to the attention of the people who are suppose to be mindful of our security.

Here is one link I found on a quick search.
The Goverment did listen to all those Vietnam protesters and what they learned was that they need to shut them the hell up. Trouble was that there was a bunch of laws protecting people from being surveilled or otherwise spyed upon. Now thanks to the Patriot Act any kind of organization that may want to protest the government are often infilltrated by police, or FBI, posing as members in the organization and reporting their activity. If your the type of person that doesn't care enough to protest anything then it's no big deal. You would tell those whiny protesters to shut up. Just like the government wishes they would. If however you care about how the government does things and occasionally find some of their actions or motivations questionable you may want to get involved in a group that champions those intrests and maybe even march or get petitions signed. Well guess what, Now your on a database in the FBI. May not mean anything except now you get audited every year now. blah blah blah

Very well said Dolly.

Very clever wording pulsisx, that someone who doesn't protest is someone "doesn't care enough about something"... upvotes for that.

Your link from "progressive.org" shows me no examples of how the patriot act has affected anyone. What, the girl getting suspended was because of the patriot act? So burning down a car dealership wasn't a crime before the patriot act?

It's a put your money where your mouth is type of philosophy. If people have concerns or care about things but don't do anything about that is really just a tragic way to live. Caring shouldn't be measured by miles marched but there are any number of ways people can address issues that matter to them. I am on the board of a non profit that brings medical supplies to people in many countries, including the US. It's a small organization but I know it is really helping.

Admittedly that link was weak I will try to find you an actual article that involves direct personal impact by the patriot act. I am traveling today, I may just message you over the weekend should I find one.

Dolly, I wasn't talking about this case in particular. I was saying that checks-and-balances are one thing, but the system allows a single person to overrule everyone else.

It could just as easily be a decision that went the opposite way that you would like.

Yes, this particular incident seems fair in that the judge held off his ruling. But I am talking in general.

In any case, once again we have these fears, the brainwashing that our privacy rights have been taken away when they clearly have not.

Hoosker, the only ones who have been affected by the Patriot Act is criminals. No one else has. No one can step up and say they were harmed in any way.


Pulsisx, so what if those who are protesting against the government are infiltrated??? That is a wise and prudent thing to do. They need to be investigated to see if they are merely talking about peaceful change through the ballot process or via a more direct method.

There is no law broken or right taken away. You make it sound like the EvilGovernment. Okay, fine. Instead of a group of 'freedom fighters' standing up for the right to call their grandma in the old country without being eavesdropped, what if it was a group of pedophiles talking about possibly going after a girl scout camping trip. It might be a good idea to investigate them, to infiltrate them to see if they are a serious threat or not.

now that being said
Correct me if I am wrong, but even I have to agree with the judge.
It appears that this ruling is the same ruling the justice department wanted for listing in on overseas calls.

The ruling still allows for the immediate investigation and examination of the records without a court-order since in these type of things, time is of the essecence, time and stealth. Giving warning to the suspected parties or taking the time to get a judge to sign off would ruin any chances of getting intel needed to stop a crime.

The ruling only mandates that the government get a court-order after the fact. An order saying that yes, the investigation was warranted, that there was valid reason to get more information, even if the person is found innocent.

If that is the case, I don't see how anyone can argue that is a good thing. If DOJ wanted that ruling for their eavesdropping of overseas parties why isn't it a good ruling here?

Thanks pulsisx for the link, and for what you do.

I'll look forward to reading what you send me.

[url=http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm]Amendment IV
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 or things to be seized.[/url] Do you not see infilltration of a private organization as a violation of the 4th amendment? Could probablly stretch and say the 1st amendment as well. Why don't they investigate corporations? (A: Corporation give them a lot of money) I think Enron did more damage than any terrorists could.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a terrorist pedophile group and that it is comparable to groups like greenpeace or the sierra club?

Groups that are protesting are often infiltrated. They have been done so decades before 911 and they will be done so in the future.

How is joining their group a violation of the 4th amendment? They are simply joining the group in an undercover fashion as is common both nationally and locally. They are seeing if the people are a threat.

What is the problem in that?

The police use undercover people all the time, there is no harm there.

I am not saying there is a terrorist pedophile group nor comparing them to greenpeace.

I am merely pointing out the obvious fact that there is a need to check out a group of people that are protesting to see if they are a threat or not. It doesn't matter if they are terrorists or bank robbers or kidnappers. The government and the police need to check out groups to see if they are peaceful or not.

I don't have statistics here, but I bet the number of crimes both locally and nationally that have been prevented by the use of undercover detectives, agents, etc is huge.

Again, do not try to spin this. They may or may not investigate corporations. They certainly don't do so based on donations. (Although Clinton -- as most presidents, just not the degree that he did -- certainly sold pardons to the highest bidder. Corporations are sometimes investigated, but the last I knew, Wal*Mart wasn't advocating overthrowing the government or any other violent actions

In brief, no the system doesn't allow that. Ultimately it allows a group of 9 to overrule everyone else, that's the Supreme Court.

I agree. Above all else checks and balances need to be preserved. It is the basis of our government, it protects any one branch from becoming more powerful than the other, thus ensuring a responsible system that upholds and fortifies the Constitution.

... but in an age of surveillance, secrets, and fear of the unknown, everything gets thrown out the window in the name of "safety".

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” - The Chimp Commander

It's nice to see someone in robes doing it instead of, say, someone named McCarthy or Nixon.Indeed. By definition, they'd never know the source of their bad luck.You raised a very smart woman.