🚀 go-pugleaf

What?  A judge who is hell bent on defending the constitution?  You
know he ain't one of Georgie's boyz!

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:37:23 -0500, Alan Smithee
<AlanSmithee@nospam.nul> wrote:

>Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions
>FBI Is Told to Halt Warrantless Tactic
>
>By Dan Eggen
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Friday, September 7, 2007; Page A01
>
>A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot
>Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday,
>ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for
>obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for
>counterterrorism investigations.
>
>The ruling by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the
>FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand such data
>violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the
>separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders
>on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the
>letters.
>
>Anthony D. Romero, head of the ACLU, said the ruling illustrates the
>"efforts of this administration to use powers that are clearly
>unconstitutional." (By George Nikitin -- Associated Press) 
>
> 
>The secrecy provisions are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and
>entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional
>values," Marrero wrote. His strongly worded 103-page opinion amounted
>to a rebuke of both the administration and Congress, which had revised
>the act in 2005 to take into account an earlier ruling by the judge on
>the same topic.
>
>Although a government appeal is likely, the decision could eliminate
>or sharply curtail the FBI's issuance of tens of thousands of national
>security letters (NSLs) each year to telephone companies, Internet
>providers and other communications firms. The FBI says it typically
>orders that such letters be kept confidential to make sure that
>suspects do not learn they are being investigated, as well as to
>protect "sources and methods" used in terrorism and
>counterintelligence probes.
>
>The ruling follows reports this year by Justice Department and FBI
>auditors that the FBI potentially violated privacy laws or bureau
>rules more than a thousand times while issuing NSLs in recent years --
>violations that did not come to light quickly, partly because of the
>Patriot Act's secrecy rules.
>
>"The risk of investing the FBI with unchecked discretion to restrict
>such speech is that government agents, based on their own
>self-certification, may limit speech that does not pose a significant
>threat to national security or other compelling government interest,"
>Marrero said.
>
>The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling. "We are
>reviewing the decision and considering our options," said spokesman
>Dean Boyd.
>
>But Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil
>Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit in the case, said the ruling
>"is yet another setback in the Bush administration's strategy in the
>war on terror and demonstrates the far-reaching efforts of this
>administration to use powers that are clearly unconstitutional."
>
>Marrero's decision would bar the use of NSLs to demand data from
>electronic communications companies, a procedure that was the focus of
>the lawsuit. But the ruling appears to leave untouched the FBI's
>ability to demand bank records, credit reports and other financial
>data related to counterterrorism and other probes, because those
>authorities are covered by other statutes, according to legal experts.
>Marrero delayed enforcement of his order for 90 days to give the
>government a chance to appeal.
>
>Although the FBI has had the ability to issue NSLs for many years, the
>Patriot Act, enacted in October 2001, significantly relaxed the rules
>for using them while increasing the secrecy requirements. The result
>has been a surge in NSL requests, from fewer than 9,000 in 2000 to
>nearly 50,000 in 2005, according to Justice Department records.
>
>Yesterday's ruling marks the second time that Marrero has struck down
>the Patriot Act's NSL provisions. In 2004, after the ACLU filed suit
>on behalf of the same plaintiff -- an Internet service provider
>identified as John Doe -- he ruled similarly that the NSL provisions
>were unconstitutional because they silenced recipients and gave them
>no recourse through the courts.
>
>While a government appeal was pending, Congress passed legislation in
>2005 aimed at solving the problems identified by Marrero. But the
>judge ruled yesterday that the revisions were not adequate and that
>under the new law, "several aspects . . . violate the First Amendment
>and the principle of separation of powers."
>
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?hpid=moreheadlines%22%3EJudge
>
>
>"Devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any
>very remarkable felicities of expression."    - Amos Bronson Alcott