Filed under: Legal Matters, National Security — marc moore on September 27, 2007 @ 4:21 am CEST
The WaPo reports that a U.S. District court ruled earlier today that two provisions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional because warrants issued under FISA may not demonstrate probable cause:
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”
…
“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law _ with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” she [Judge Aiken] wrote.
While this decision will not make the Bush administration or security hawks happy I believe that it is the correct ruling.
Though much has happened since the tumultuous times after 9/11, it’s still crystal clear in my mind how the administration redefined patriot to mean a person who agreed, without question, in their plans to secure the nation, regardless of what Constitutional compromises might be required. Republicans, led by Bush and Cheney, proceeded to use patriotism as a club to beat down dissent, a heavy-handed tactic that only worked because of the word’s new meaning.
The Patriot Act was one of the primary products of that politically brutal effort and one that I think history will show to have been a mistake for the nation.
Probable cause, like habeous corpus, is a central tenet of the justice system. It should not have been skirted for the last 5 years and should be restored to its rightful place as a right held by all Americans, the sooner the better.
h/t memeorandum
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
1 Xel
September 27, 2007 @ 5:48 am CEST“While this decision will not make the Bush administration or security hawks happy I believe that it is the correct ruling.”
You kinda nailed the rationale for your belief in the same sentence.
2 Uncommon common sense on the Constitution « Greg Prince’s Blog
September 27, 2007 @ 5:51 am CEST[…] Van Der Galien Gazette: Though much has happened since the tumultuous times after 9/11, it’s still crystal clear in my mind how the administration redefined patriot to mean a person who agreed, without question, in their plans to secure the nation, regardless of what Constitutional compromises might be required. Republicans, led by Bush and Cheney, proceeded to use patriotism as a club to beat down dissent, a heavy-handed tactic that only worked because of the word’s new meaning. […]
3 jpe
September 27, 2007 @ 6:00 am CESTThis was a well-reasoned, well-written opinion, and the merits are pretty clear (probable cause is a floor, not a recommended guideline). I’m not an expert on the doctrine of standing (the constitutional prohibition on decisions that are merely advisory - there has to be a harm that the courts can fix), but it seems like the weakest part, and the most likely grounds for a reversal.