Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Judge Strikes Down the Patriot Act

  1. #1

    Default Judge Strikes Down the Patriot Act

    A federal judge in Oregon ruled yesterday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional, marking the second time in as many weeks that the anti-terrorism law has come under attack in the courts.

    In a case brought by a Portland man who was wrongly detained as a terrorism suspect in 2004, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution because it "permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092602084.html

  2. #2

    Default

    thank god, finally, some common sense prevails.

  3. #3
    LadyMod at scam.com
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linkster
    A federal judge in Oregon ruled yesterday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional, marking the second time in as many weeks that the anti-terrorism law has come under attack in the courts.

    In a case brought by a Portland man who was wrongly detained as a terrorism suspect in 2004, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution because it "permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092602084.html
    It's about time we had more Judges who actually remembered we have a Constitution. Kudos for Judge Aiken.


    Lady Mod

  4. #4
    disrupter
    Guest

    Default

    I don't want to get my hopes up.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linkster
    A federal judge in Oregon ruled yesterday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional, marking the second time in as many weeks that the anti-terrorism law has come under attack in the courts.

    In a case brought by a Portland man who was wrongly detained as a terrorism suspect in 2004, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution because it "permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092602084.html
    It states the FBI "bungled the fingerprint match" and that's why the judge ruled against the prosecution, the fact the judge is obviously in favor of protecting terrorists rights is not relevant

    With any luck ,Aiken's house will the first one in Al Quada's crosshairs when they execute thier first successful terrorist attack next year ,on this Country when O'Bambi and the leftests are put in charge of protecting this country

  6. #6
    LadyMod at scam.com
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frankg
    It states the FBI "bungled the fingerprint match" and that's why the judge ruled against the prosecution, the fact the judge is obviously in favor of protecting terrorists rights is not relevant

    With any luck ,Aiken's house will the first one in Al Quada's crosshairs when they execute thier first successful terrorist attack next year ,on this Country when O'Bambi and the leftests are put in charge of protecting this country

    LOL, Frankie you don't even deserve to call yourself an American. And what are you worried about? According to you, Bush has protected us for the last 6 years from terrorist attacks.

    http://scam.com/showthread.php?t=31158

  7. #7
    Senior Member Smurf-Herder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the Quantum Vacuum
    Posts
    12,776

    Default

    This is actually all pointless.

    The last revisions gave the FISA court oversight on procedures.

    It's only unconstitutional if the procedures they used weren't part of those submitted to the FISA court for approval, on a regular basis; according to the changes Congress made.

    This would be under the jurisdiction of the FISA court, being the only judicial body cleared for the type of information and procedures used in these type of cases.
    "I am not a number. I am a free man!"

  8. #8

    Default

    Smurf Herder - I guess you didnt hear that the Fisa court was taken out of the loop 60 or so days ago by Bush's new bill

  9. #9
    Senior Member Smurf-Herder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the Quantum Vacuum
    Posts
    12,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linkster
    Smurf Herder - I guess you didnt hear that the Fisa court was taken out of the loop 60 or so days ago by Bush's new bill
    Give me a MSM link on it.
    "I am not a number. I am a free man!"

  10. #10

    Default

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...nce/index.html
    New bill only requires the attorney general or the director of national intelligence the authority to approve surveillance - not a warrant obtained through FISA as you had to previously

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •