Jump to content

Build Theme!
  •  
  • Infected?

WE'RE SURE THAT YOU'LL LOVE US!

Hey there! :wub: Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account. When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. You can like posts to share the love. :D Join 91674 other members! Anybody can ask, anybody can answer. Consistently helpful members may be invited to become staff. Here's how it works. Virus cleanup? Start here -> Malware Removal Forum.

Try What the Tech -- It's free!


Photo

patriot act STILL UN-Constitutional, ACLU Says


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 08 August 2006 - 11:20 PM

(Read the entire page here -

http://www.aclu.org/...rs20060807.html )

"NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union announced today that they have returned to court to challenge the constitutionality of the reauthorized Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The provision permits the FBI to prohibit anyone who receives an NSL from disclosing that the FBI has sought or obtained information from them."

....

"The ACLU filed the case in April 2004 on behalf of an Internet Service Provider that had received an NSL and was prohibited from disclosing that the FBI had sought information from it. In September 2004, the district court struck down the NSL provision as unconstitutional, with Judge Victor Marrero writing that "democracy abhors undue secrecy." In his landmark ruling, Judge Marrero held that indefinite gag orders imposed under the NSL law violate free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

The government appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral argument was heard in November 2005. Before the court issued a decision, however, Congress amended the NSL provision. In May 2006, the appeals court issued a ruling asking the district court to consider the constitutionality of the amended law. In a concurring opinion, Judge Richard Cardamone strongly criticized the government for continuing to argue that a permanent ban on speech would be permissible under the First Amendment.

"A ban on speech and a shroud of secrecy in perpetuity are antithetical to democratic concepts and do not fit comfortably with the fundamental rights guaranteed American citizens," wrote Judge Cardamone. "Unending secrecy of actions taken by government officials may also serve as a cover for possible official misconduct and/or incompetence."

Judge Cardamone added that national security concerns "should be leavened with common sense so as not forever to trump the rights of the citizenry under the Constitution." "

=====================================================

IMO, both Judge Marrero and Cardamone are dead on the mark - NSL's are horribly prone and susceptible to abuse/mis-use - abuse/mis-use which can not be rectified due to the secrecy surrounding them - the un-Constitutionality of their use (as currently implemented) - period - is glaringly obvious. Pete
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

    Advertisements

Register to Remove


#2 turtledove

turtledove

    MRU Graduate

  • Visiting Fellow
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Interests:Getting rid of malware, helping others when I can. Reading. Outdoors, horses, music and computers. :)

Posted 10 August 2006 - 05:28 AM

Couldn't agree more with the judges or your own statement. Thanks for the info. :)
Graduate of MalWare Removal University - A Cooperative Effort with WhatTheTech Classroom
Member of UNITE

Online Armor
Spywareblaster
WinPatrol AntiVir SpywareGuard

Smile...It WILL get Better

#3 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 09:44 AM

You're quite welcome. Hope you're FAX'ing or calling your Reps about it as I did! Pete
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

#4 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 10:49 AM

This is the copy of the FAX that I just sent BOTH of my Senators (I urge all of you to go to http://www.theorator.com/senate.html and FAX or call your Senators, also, with your feelings on these two proposed pieces of legislation):

"Totally opposed to S. 2453 AND S. 2455 !

Dear Senator,

As your constituent , I urge you to do everything in

your power to OPPOSE passage of BOTH S. 2453 (National Security

Surveillance Act of 2006) AND S. 2455 (Terrorist Surveillance Act of

2006).

The Executive Branch of this country is totally out-of-control,

Constitutionally-speaking, and I want this trend reversed.

Both these pieces of proposed legislation are the complete anti-

thesis of what this country is supposed to stand for – justice meted

out through due process - NOT “secret” government edicts and

spying on its’ own populace!

I want a return to traditional three-Branch government, each

with effective, real checks-and-balances – and I want it NOW.

I will be watching your vote on these bills closely, not only to

determine how I vote in the upcoming elections – but to determine

how I urge all my family and friends on how to vote, as well as being

very vocal online about it.

I am trusting you to come down on the side of liberty and

freedom in these issues – not secrecy and oppression.

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution – DO SO.

(Signed)"
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

Related Topics



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users